How do landscapes evolve over time? As this question considers change over space and time, scale, rates, flow, looking at things holistically, how human settlement occurs on the landscape, and how humans can change that landscape, it is, at its core, a geographic question. William Morris Davis (1850–1934) grappled with this question. Why is he considered by many to be the “father of geography” in the United States? Certainly his long influence in both the 19th and 20th centuries played a role in conferring that title, along with his long tenure at Harvard University, but it is largely his revolutionary views about the landscape that moved the entire discipline forward. These views cause many to consider Davis to be the most appropriate person to merit this title.
Davis’s influence was so profound that the subset of geography known as geomorphology—the study of landscape change—was in large part created and also matured because of him. Davis used an analogy that is almost human (and at the very least, organic or biological) to describe landscape change. Of the erosion cycle that occurs on a landscape, Davis describes it as changing from youth to maturity and then, as it progresses, to old age. Davis believed that running water is an essential component of landscape creation. He believed that the processes of erosion, uplift, and then erosion was a cyclical one, and thus he viewed the time period for landscape evolution as vast in scope: Davis accepted Hutton’s principle of uniformitarianism (see Hutton, James).
According to Davis, at the beginning of his erosion cycle, rivers are small, and streams are shallow because of the imperfect drainage of the surrounding topography. In these landscapes, these streams flow at a rapid rate down a valley’s steep slope, cutting incised gullies. The streams begin to carve out deeper channels and widen, and tributaries contribute more water and larger flow to the valley’s main river channel. Waterfalls are caused by the varying hardness of rocks as they are worn back. Side-streams form their own valleys, and the valley slopes increase as more soil and sediment is carried downstream. As the main river begins to meander across the valley and more erosion occurs, the valley becomes flatter in maturity. The headwaters of the streams continue to erode the uplands, widening the valley. In old age, with the increased sediment load, the river slows and widens. The tributaries’ flow dwindles. Meanders become so sinuous that oxbow lakes form. Morris called the end result of a flat, nearly featureless plain a “peneplain.” Thus, each stage of river development is associated with specific landforms. The relative age of the river system can be determined by discerning the stage in the erosion cycle. The cycle continues until another uplift rejuvenates the entire system. He adapted his cycle of erosion to include humid, arid, glacial, and other conditions.
Furthermore, the core of geography, claimed Davis, was found in the relationship between physical geography—what he called the “controlling agent”—and human response. This concept is so commonplace among geographers today, but Davis is the one who made it so, beginning over 100 years ago. Davis expanded Darwin’s tenets of change over time to include humankind within the landscape instead of being considered separate from it.
Morris was born into a Quaker family in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. From the outset, he was no stranger to controversy and outspoken people: His grandmother was the famous abolitionist Lucretia Mott. His father was expelled from the Society of Friends for enlisting in the Union Army during the Civil War. Morris soon became a diverse learner, including engineering, meteorology, and geology, in addition to geography. His concept of the geographical cycle was first defined in his 1889 article “The Rivers and Valleys of Pennsylvania,” which described how rivers erode uplifted land to base level. As other geographers before and after him, Morris keenly observed every landscape he was in. As a child, he spent his summers in the farmlands of Pennsylvania, which instilled in him a deep interest in geography, or, as was the more common term at the time, “natural history.” At age 19, he toured the mining districts of the Lake Superior region and then conducted fieldwork in the Rocky Mountains. At age 20, he accompanied one of his former instructors to organize an astronomical observatory in Argentina, where he remained for two and a half years.
William Morris Davis was perhaps the most influential American geographer of all time. He created numerous schools of thought on geomorphology and the evolution of landscapes over time, and the interaction between physical geography and the actions of humans. (Harvard University Archives)
As an adult, Davis produced detailed ink drawings of surface features. He was particularly adept at drawing block diagrams to help readers visualize landscapes in three dimensions. He was a careful reader of others who had traveled and who had carefully recorded their observations, such as John Wesley Powell’s recordings of erosion on the landscape in the American West (see Hayden, Powell, and Wheeler Surveys). He was a prolific writer, authoring over 500 papers during his lifetime, including a paper on the rivers and valleys of Pennsylvania that appeared the very first volume of National Geographic magazine in 1889. He wrote on topics as wide-ranging as coral reefs and caves and caverns. Like other geographers described in this book, Davis was ever the explorer. He ran a nine-week “geographical pilgrimage” from Wales to Italy in 1911 and an eight-week transcontinental expedition of the American Geographical Society during the following year for European and American geographers. Active throughout his life, Davis served as visiting professor in numerous universities in the United States and in Europe. He was a corresponding member of more than 30 scientific societies throughout the world. His last post was professor of physiographic geology at the California Institute of Technology, held while he was in his 80s, from 1930 until he died in 1934.
Walther Penck
Like William Morris Davis, Walther Penck (1888–1923, from Germany) explored the evolution of landforms, but he saw it differently than Davis. While Davis assumed rapid uplift of a land surface followed by a long period of stability, Penck believed that uplift occurred over a period that was so prolonged that the landscape would be eroded at the same time as it was being uplifted. He also believed that landscape evolution was dependent upon the tectonics of the area. More recently, the ideas of Penck and Davis have been viewed as complementary, given the acceptance of tectonic theory, with Davis’s ideas more applicable near active plate boundaries and Penck’s ideas more applicable on relatively inactive boundaries and in the interiors of continents.
As part of the lively debate in the geography community, Morris’s emphasis in meteorology, geology, and geography changed over time as these fields underwent change over the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Morris’s influence also varied over time and place. He had a deep influence on British geomorphology, but the organic analogy to landscape change was rejected by Russian geographers. Walther Penck of Germany, for example, disagreed with Morris, coming to the conclusion that the processes of uplift and denudation occur simultaneously, at gradual and continuous rates. Since that time of criticism, and with the advent of plate tectonic theory, some researchers now claim that Morris’s and Penck’s ideas are more compatible and perhaps even complementary (see Wegener, Alfred). They state that Davis’s ideas are more applicable near active plate boundaries, and that Penck’s ideas fit better at passive plate boundaries and in the middles of continents. Equally importantly and perhaps ironically, a number of prominent geographers of his time took issue with his human–landscape coupling, and an eventual split between physical geography and human geography resulted from this disagreement.
Davis was an excellent example of a geographer in academia who reached beyond the university to the geography professional community and to schools. He adopted his erosion cycle model for use by teachers in primary and secondary schools in 1889. These efforts eventually led to the establishment of geography in 20th century schools (see Defining Geography). His textbooks Elementary Meteorology and Elementary Physical Geography were widely used in colleges. He played a major role in the Geological Society of America (see Geographical Societies). He was instrumental in the formation of the Association of American Geographers in 1904, and he served for three terms as its president. Moreover, Davis took the study of physical geography, which before his time was a bit of an unordered agglomeration of facts and figures, and enabled it to be systematically described. In so doing, he moved the entire discipline forward.
See also: Defining Geography; Geographical Societies; Hayden, Powell, and Wheeler Surveys; Hutton, James
Bryan, Kirk. 1935. “William Morris Davis: Leader in Geomorphology and Geography.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 25: 23–31.
Davis, William Morris. 1889. “The Rivers and Valleys of Pennsylvania.” National Geographic 1: 183–253.
Davis, William Morris. 1899. “The Geographical Cycle.” Geographical Journal 14: 481–504.
Judson, Sheldon. 1960. “William Morris Davis: An Appraisal.” Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie 4 (3/4): 193–201.
Martin, Geoffrey J., and Preston E. James. 1993. All Possible Worlds: A History of Geographical Ideas, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
A peculiar, long-running thread in geography has been the attempt to define and make the case for its own discipline. Perhaps because geography was rather late in arriving as an established department in academia and suffered through some closures in Ivy League universities (see Geography Departments), geographers have felt that these definitions would help its legitimacy in higher education. Perhaps it is because geography at the primary and secondary level in the United States was subsumed in 1910 under the social studies. This anchored geography’s position in schools, but it was subsequently overshadowed by the study of history, in terms of the number of hours taught each week and the number of instructors. Perhaps it is because geography is frequently misunderstood by the general public, or even by those in other disciplines on the university campus. Perhaps it is because geographers feel passionately about their own discipline and feel the need to state why and how geography is relevant and necessary to education and society. Perhaps it is a combination of all of these reasons. Geography’s spokespersons have continued to promote their own discipline, but in order to do so, they have felt the need to clearly define its goals and purposes.
Defining and making the case for geography goes back to the 1800s: Halford Mackinder, at the founding of the first university undergraduate course at Oxford in the United Kingdom, asked the Royal Geographical Society, “What is geography?” (see Mackinder, Halford). Today, geographers such as Harm De Blij and Jerome Dobson say, “Geography matters!” and “Bring back geography!” in books and articles—some of which, such as The Revenge of Geography (Kaplan 2010) are geared toward the general public, rather than to the academic geography community. One year after professional geography in the United States received a boost through the founding of the Association of American Geographers (AAG), William Morris Davis in 1905 responded to statements that geography is simply an undisciplined “omnium-gatherum” by describing an approach that, as he saw it, imparts a “geographical quality” to some knowledge and accounts for the absence of the quality elsewhere (Davis 1906). Because of this concern, the AAG published, in 1939 and again in 1959, monographs that were exclusively devoted to a critical review of definitions in geography and the implications of those definitions.
Of any one of the definitions of geography, those that truly revolutionized the discipline were Pattison’s “Four Traditions,” the “five themes,” and the eighteen “geography standards.” Let us consider each of these in turn.
In 1964, academic geographer William Pattison, in an attempt to go beyond what he saw as narrow, “monastic” definitions of geography, outlined four of what he termed “traditions” of geography:
1.The Spatial Tradition, or spatial analysis, the act of separating from the happenings of experience such aspects as distance, form, direction, and position. Under this can be included such topics as mapping, spatial analysis, movement and transportation, areal distribution, and quantitative techniques and tools such as spatial statistics and GIS.
2.The Area Studies Tradition, the nature of places, their character, and their differentiation. Under this tradition can be included world regional geography.
3.The Man-Land Tradition, or the effect of the environment on people, and the effect of people on the environment. Natural hazards studies and cultural and population geography can be included under this tradition.
4.The Earth Science Tradition. Under this tradition, geomorphology, oceanography, Earth-sun interaction studies, glaciology, geomorphology, and meteorology can be included. He voiced concern for what he viewed as the neglect of this tradition, which he aligned with the statement, “Geography is the mother of sciences.”
Pattison stated that the intent of the article was “to serve to expedite the task of maintaining an alliance between professional geography and pedagogical geography, and at the same time to promote communication with laymen.” His first purpose was to maintain dialogue between those in the Association of American Geographers and the National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE), representing geographic research and education, respectively. Both were founded in the early 20th century (1904 and 1910, respectively) and joined forces on a number of occasions, most notably to define geography educational content standards during the 1980s and 1990s, as will be explained in the next section. Pattison’s second purpose is another example of geographers’ attempts to communicate why their discipline is critical to education and society.
In 1984, a committee jointly representing the AAG and the NCGE published its Guidelines for Geographic Education: Elementary and Secondary Schools. The study became known for its “five themes of geography,” which has had great influence on the content taught in geography through the present day—more than 100,000 copies of this publication were distributed. Moreover, it raised the visibility of teaching geography and helped educators focus on the core tenets of the discipline. These themes have been remembered with “Mr. HELP” as a helpful acronym: Movement, Region, Human-Environment interaction, Location, and Place.
All of these documents helped define the subfields of geography. These include human geography and physical geography. Under human geography exist many subfields, including cultural geography (understanding and describing the spatial distribution and characteristics of cultural groups and practices), economic geography (studying the relationship between economic systems and the biophysical environment), historical geography (understanding world history and events in terms of space and time), population geography (studying cultural composition, growth, migration patterns, and demographics), political geography (analyzing the spatial characteristics of political systems), and medical geography (examining the characteristics of disease and human health across time and space). Others exist as well. Under physical geography are geomorphology (concerned with the Earth’s form and structure as manifested in landforms and other physical characteristics), hydrology (concerned with all forms of surface, underground, and atmospheric water), climatology (concerned with long-term climate and its effect on human populations), biogeography (concerned with geographic aspects of plant and animal life and processes), pedology (concerned with the spatial aspects of soils), and meteorology (concerned with weather).
Like most other disciplines, geography in the 20th century saw a specialization into subfields. Along with these trends, however, were repeated reminders in the literature that the holistic, systems-approach view that geography had always had remained important. An oft-repeated statement was that geography is the only discipline that asks you to make sense of the whole world and everything in it .
The third “definition” document that had great impact on geography was the establishment of instructional content standards for the discipline. This closely mirrored similar movements in history, science, mathematics, language arts, and other disciplines in many countries during the 1990s. During this time, in part because education began to acutely feel pressure from government funding and from the increased accountability the public was asking of its school systems, each discipline responded by establishing standards that stated what students should “know and be able to do.” These standards included perspectives, skills, and content knowledge. In the United Kingdom, the Geographical Association set forth the standards; in Canada, the Canadian Council for Geographic Education (now Canadian Geographic Education) addressed the task; and in the United States, the effort was tackled by a joint committee from four associations: the AAG, the NCGE, the American Geographical Society, and the National Geographic Society. In 1994, six categories for teaching geography were established, stating that the “geographically informed person knows and understands” (1) The World in Spatial Terms, (2) Places and Regions, (3) Physical Systems, (4) Human Systems, (5) Environment and Society, and (6) Uses of Geography.
Under these six categories, eighteen geography standards were defined: (1) how to use maps and other geographic representations, tools, and technologies to acquire, process, and report information; (2) how to use mental maps to organize information about people, places, and environments; (3) how to analyze the spatial organization of people, places, and environments on Earth’s surface; (4) the physical and human characteristics of places; (5) that people create regions to interpret Earth’s complexity; (6) how culture and experience influence people’s perception of places and regions; (7) the physical processes that shape the patterns of Earth’s surface; (8) the characteristics and spatial distribution of ecosystems on Earth’s surface; (9) the characteristics, distribution, and migration of human populations on Earth’s surface; (10) the characteristics, distributions, and complexity of Earth’s cultural mosaics; (11) the patterns and networks of economic interdependence on Earth’s surface; (12) the process, patterns, and functions of human settlement; (13) how forces of cooperation and conflict among people influence the division and control of Earth’s surface; (14) how human actions modify the physical environment; (15) how physical systems affect human systems; (16) the changes that occur in the meaning, use, distribution, and importance of resources; (17) how to apply geography to interpret the past; and (18) how to apply geography to interpret the present and plan for the future (National Council for Geographic Education 1994).
These content standards were intended to be “living documents”; indeed, the U.S. standards were updated in 2012 to reflect changes, especially in geographic tools that were now available for instruction (e.g., see Geographic Information Systems). The impact on the discipline was revolutionary in many ways: the professional societies were now working together on projects of joint importance, geography’s legitimacy in primary and secondary education was re-legitimized alongside other disciplines, and professional development for educators was established through a network of geographic alliances established by the National Geographic Society. The national standards were incorporated in various forms into state and school district-level standards, and increased research in geography education resulted at the university level.
The standards movement was not unique to the United States. Around the world, geography standards were created during the 1980s and 1990s and revised through the early 2000s (Milson et al. 2012). In addition, teaching standards were developed during that same time period. The geography teaching standards in Turkey, for example, revised in 2005, adhere to modern educational theory and include student-based learning, learning by experience, constructivist teaching, multiple intelligence theory-based learning, active learning, research-based teaching, problem-solving–based learning, and the use of information and communication technology in geography.
Thus, the traditions, themes, and standards established for geography did far more than define the discipline for geographers—they encompassed all the richness that the geographic holistic perspective brings, yet they recognized the value of specialization. They bridged research and instruction, made the discipline far more visible, and gave new consistency, vibrancy, and relevance to geography. They made the case that geography was important far more than solely for research and teaching—that geography was important for making smart decisions in one’s own personal life. And furthermore, the collective smarter decision-making by a geographically enabled population would result in a more sustainable, healthier planet.
See also: Geographic Information Systems (GIS); Geography Departments; Mackinder, Halford
Davis, William Morris. 1906. “An Inductive Study of the Content of Geography.” Bulletin of the American Geographical Society 38 (1).
Heffron, Susan, and Roger Downs. 2012. Geography for Life, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: National Council for Geographic Education.
Kaplan, Robert D. 2013. The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us About Coming Conflicts and the Battle Against Fate. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Milson, Andrew J., Ali Demirci, and Joseph Kerski. 2012. International Perspectives on Teaching and Learning with GIS in Secondary Schools. Dordrecht: Springer.
National Council for Geographic Education. 1994. Geography for Life: National Geography Standards. Washington, DC: National Council for Geographic Education.
Pattison, William D. 1964. “The Four Traditions of Geography.” Journal of Geography, pp. 211–216. http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~kclarke/G200B/four_20traditions_20of_20geography.pdf.