|
|
 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||
| JOURNAL HOME | HELP | CONTACT PUBLISHER | SUBSCRIBE | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, 210 Whitney Ave., New Haven, Connecticut 06511
E-mail, brian.skinner{at}yale.edu
 |
The Founding |
|---|
 Top The Founding Volume 1, Number 1The Remainder of Volume...Closing CommentReferences |
|---|
The later years of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries were times of intense debate concerning the genesis of mineral deposits. Late in 1904, Josiah E. Spurr pointed out to some friends from the U.S. Geological Survey that a dedicated journal would help disseminate and internationalize the substance of the debates. We know where the friends gathered—at the Cosmos Club in Washington, D.C., and approximately when—sometime in November or December. We also know that Waldemar Lindgren and H. Foster Bain were among those present, and that Spurr’s idea was discussed with enthusiasm.
There must have been many informal discussions in the early months of 1905, but there is no record of them. We know, however, that all the background planning for a new journal had been done by May 16, 1905, because on that day Spurr, Lindgren, and Bain, together with Arthur H. Brooks, Frederick L. Ransome, John D. Irving, and George O. Smith, met and agreed to form a public company, the sole purpose of which was the publication of a scientific journal about mineral deposits. The company, subsequently named the Economic Geology Publishing Company,was to be funded by the sale of 80 shares, par value $25, and governed by a board of directors. Spurr was elected chairman of the board, Ransome, the secretary, and Smith, the treasurer. Other members of the board were Lindgren, Brooks, Irving, Marius R. Campbell, and Walter H. Weed. The first matter facing the board was the election of an editor; they chose Irving and their choice was insightful. Although connected with the Survey, Irving’s primary appointment was at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, a posting that allowed him the time and the freedom to meet the demanding publication schedule set by the directors. More information about the earliest days of the Economic Geology Publishing Company can be found in articles by Bateman (1955) and Skinner et al. (1997).
But what exactly did the directors of the new journal have in mind? We get the first details of their thinking in a circular mailed on May 31, 1905. The circular offered a subscriber eight copies per year of a journal "...devoted primarily to the broad application of geological principles of mineral deposits of economic value, to the scientific description of such deposits, and particularly to the chemical, physical, and structural problems bearing on their genesis." The cost was $3.00/year. The key words in the circular were mineral deposits, scientific,and genesis.To stress the point that the venture was not another mining publication, and that the focus of the journal was scientific rather than commercial, the directors added the statement that "with the engineering and commercial aspects of mining, Economic Geology will not be directly concerned..."
The directors proposed an initial publication date that seems pretty hectic by today’s standards. In the May 31 circular, they suggested that "...the first number will probably appear in September" of 1905. They almost made it; issue number 1 appeared in October 1905, less than a year from Spurr’s initial suggestion! Subsequent issues appeared at regular intervals and volume 1 was completed in October 1906, with the appearance of issue number 8. Thereafter, and continuing to the present day, the eight issues per year have followed a January-to-December schedule.
|
Volume 1, Number 1 |
|---|
|
TopThe FoundingVolume 1, Number 1The Remainder of Volume...Closing CommentReferences |
|---|
There are six papers in the first issue, five by associate editors Ransome, Kemp, Campbell, Lindgren, and Leith, and one by USGS colleague Eugene Sullivan. There is, in addition, an editorial by Irving, a discussion on the training of engineers in economic geology, also by Irving, and reviews of eight recently published books. The issue closes with a listing of recent publications on economic geology, and four pages of notes and news. It seems apparent, in retrospect, that the editor and associate editors viewed the first issue as an ideal opportunity to make clear what they thought the field of economic geology should embrace, and the role that Economic Geologyshould play, in the emerging discipline.
The first paper
The first paper, by Ransome, is not so much a scientific paper as it is a statement of what the field and the new journal are all about, and it gets right to the point. Born in England but educated in the United States, Ransome was "...a master of clear and logical English" (Lindgren, 1935) and this talent is evident throughout his paper, "The Present Standing of Applied Geology." He commenced by addressing a touchy point—economic geology was not getting the respect it deserved as a science because it was viewed as "too applied." Ransome doesn’t say so, but we know there had been much discussion about the name of the new journal, and there is little doubt that it was the idea that "applied" does not equate with "science" that led the directors to choose Economic Geologyrather than Applied Geology. Ransome goes further, and makes it clear that lack of respect for economic geology, particularly among miners, was a prime reason for founding the new journal: "...papers dealing with economic geology, even when of the highest order of scientific merit, seldom appear in periodicals devoted to geology, but for want of a more appropriate place, find their most congenial lodgment in the transactions of engineering societies and in the mining journals." The new journal, writes Ransome, will provide "...a place where the results of investigations of scientific character, recorded in the concise and accurate phraseology of science and addressed to readers who need no concessions to their knowledge or intelligence, may appropriately be assembled, and where questions of interpretation or theory may be freely discussed."
Who were the economic geologists of Ransome’s day? In 1905 they were mainly government employees. Ransome stressed that whatever measure of respect did exist for economic geologists was entirely "...due to the character of the investigations carried out by our federal and state surveys." However, he noted, the tide was turning, and even industry seemed to be finding some uses for geologists, because "...some of the larger mining companies and at least one of our railroad companies now retain in their employ geologists of recognized ability and international repute, apparently without any misgivings lest in so doing they should be maintaining an expensive scientific luxury." Note that Ransome does not call the company men economic geologists. I don’t think this was an oversight because later in his article he writes, "economic geology is preeminently an appropriate field for government activity. The cost of comprehensive studies of mining districts and of the proper presentation of the results is such that, if left to private enterprise, the investigations would necessarily be sporadic, unsystematic, and incomplete." Ransome’s conviction that economic geology was a field of study best left to government geologists would soon be shown to be incorrect. Fifteen years after Ransome’s paper was published, there were at least as many economic geologists in industry as there were in government employment, and the changing balance led, in 1920, to the founding of the Society of Economic Geologists. Like their government colleagues, industry geologists used Economic Geology as the medium for their scientific discourses, and over the century past, many classic papers have originated from within their midst.
The balance of Ransome’s brief article addresses recent scientific advances in the study of mineral deposits, and reminds readers of long-continued debates such as the issue of magmatic versus meteoric waters as the source of ore-fluids. He emphasizes the profusion of ideas in the field by quoting S. F. Emmons to the effect that, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, "so fertile had been the imagination of previous thinkers on this subject that at this time it was practically impossible to conceive a theory of origin for a given ore deposit that had not been already proposed or at least suggested." Profusion had given way to confusion, and the new journal was intended to be the vehicle that published the record as the confusion was clarified.
The scientific papers
The five papers that follow Ransome’s opening essay deal with specific scientific subjects. Each subject was a hot topic in 1905, and we have to suppose that there had been a good deal of discussion among the directors as to which among the many hot topics of the day should grace the first issue. The first, and most demanding, topic of the time was secondary enrichment. The topic was one of both scientific challenge and practical importance. The existence of a secondary enrichment blanket could be the key to success or failure of a mine in 1905. Diamond drilling was in its infancy, and the extent of enrichment had in most cases to be estimated from outcrop and test pit examinations.
The second topic of scientific discussion was coal. In 1905, coal was king as far as fuel was concerned, and the directors clearly hoped that geologists in the coal community would view Economic Geologyas their journal of choice; for many years they did so. After coal came an article on depths of mineralization and the continuity of ore with depth, then a paper on banded iron formations, and finally a paper on experimental studies of reactions between copper-bearing solutions and silicate minerals. At least three of the topics in the list of chosen articles—depth of mineralization, banded iron formations, and solution-rock interactions, would be likely choices if the journal were being started today. `
The first scientific paper published in Economic Geology was authored by Kemp and titled "Secondary Enrichment in Ore-deposits of Copper." The paper is largely mineralogical, because the challenge of the day was to determine the extent of enrichment from a study of the near-surface mineralogy. The key to doing so was being able to distinguish which minerals were primary, which secondary. It had not been recognized in 1905, for example, that some minerals—such as chalcocite—can be either primary or secondary. The general principle of secondary enrichment—downward transfer by acidic solutions created by weathering—was understood, but there were many details and apparent anomalies that puzzled Kemp. For example, the accepted notion of the time was that enrichment is a progressive process and if long continued, all sulfur is lost and the residue is a mass of native copper. Such thinking led to the idea that even the great native copper deposits of Michigan must have been produced by long-continued secondary enrichment. Kemp reports the conclusion, but he was clearly wary because he remarks, "...one cannot avoid the conclusion that either the copper of Keweenaw Point has resulted from an original deposit that is very old and that has run the full gamut of secondary enrichment or else some other factor has entered which is quite different from the normal course of changes." Few, if any, modern students of the great Michigan deposits would consider that secondary enrichment played a significant role in their genesis, but it was clearly an issue in 1905.
Following Kemp’s offering is Marius Campbell’s paper on a "Hypothesis to Account for the Transformation of Vegetable Matter into the Different Varieties of Coal." The paper seems to have been written as a kind of advertising statement to the effect that issues related to coal were welcome in the new journal. The paper is little more than a summary of what was reasonably well known at the time. Three essential points are made: coalification is a process of fractional distillation due to heat; heat may be applied rapidly as in a volcanic region, or slowly during burial; if heat is applied slowly, coalification is controlled by factors such as the permeability of the enclosing strata and the escape of gases. The notion that the escape of gases might determine the rate at which the grade of coal increases led A. C. Lane to submit a discussion of Campbell’s paper that appears in issue 5. "One is tempted to enquire," wrote Lane, "whether the mantling of the great ice sheet should not have checked that action, and whether therefore, according to his hypothesis, the coals north of the Ohio should not be in an average way less developed than those farther south, where the gases have been less confined and the temperature probably on the whole higher."
In subsequent years, many important papers on coal were published in Economic Geology,but now, a century later, they are rarely if ever submitted for consideration, although it should be noted that the role of hydrocarbons in ore formation is today a healthy and expanding field of research.
The third scientific paper, by Waldemar Lindgren, addresses a topic that was of immense interest in 1905 and is still a topic of both scientific and practical importance. The title of the paper is "Ore Deposition and Deep Mining," and the key question is "just how deeply do ore-forming processes operate?" and by extension, how deeply can the miner expect the ore to run? By 1905 Lindgren was already established as one of the seminal thinkers concerning issues in the genesis of mineral deposits. One can see in his brief paper the roots of what in later publications became his depth-scale classification for epigenetic hydrothermal deposits. "If it can be shown," he writes, "that ore deposition changes in depth, gradually and generally, that change must be due to pressure and temperature." It was only a few years later that Lindgren published his first attempt to systematize deposit types in terms of the pressure-temperature regimes under which they formed. It would be another 50 years before boiling, fluid mixing, and wall-rock alterations would be recognized as also playing important roles in mineral deposition.
One issue raised by Lindgren, fissure veins, seems innocuous today, but generated much discussion throughout the rest of volume 1. Lindgren’s statement is blunt: "Concerning the genesis of fissure veins there are several views, discussion of which is unnecessary for the present purposes, since those generally accepted agree that the metallic contents of these deposits have been deposited by ascending, hot solutions, in fact ascending hot springs, and most observers also agree that the metals were taken up in solution by the water at some point considerably below the point of precipitation." Lindgren may have thought "discussion" about the genesis of fissure veins was unnecessary, but others clearly did not. In the second issue of the journal there are lengthy discussions of the subject by Kemp and R. W. Raymond; issue three has discussions by Spurr and A.C. Spencer; in issue four, Emmons gives his opinion; H. Louis and W. S. Kelley weigh in with opinions in issue five; and F. L. Hess gives his opinion in issue seven. From the perspective of a century later the discussions seem rather tame—they concern things such as Germanic etymology, the meaning of the term, and a modern definition—but they do underscore the point made by Spurr in 1904 concerning the need for a vehicle of communication.
The fourth of the scientific papers, by Leith, is on the "Genesis of the Lake Superior Iron Ores." Leith’s classic work on the Mesabi Range had appeared as U.S. Geological Survey Monograph no. 43 in 1903, and he used that work and other monographs published by Survey authors to address the origin of the ores. Much of the paper concerns the issue of alteration of what Leith calls "the original rocks" in order to produce the rich oxide ores that were being mined. Most interesting, in my opinion, is his discussion of the "original rocks," by which he meant the protolith. Although there are only "mere remnants left unaltered," Leith was convinced that the primary iron formations were either "...cherty iron carbonate or...ferrous silicate (greenalite), or, to a minute extent, iron sulphide." He stresses that the primary iron formations are water-laid sediments and offers the opinion that "...their nearest analogues are chemical sediments, such as limestones." Leith does not venture a personal opinion on the mechanism of precipitation, but instead quotes C. R.Van Hise to the effect that it was oxidation of a ferrous solution and that reduction back to the ferrous state, as observed in the original rocks, must have been caused by organic matter. The idea that these iron-rich sediments might be possible markers in the build-up of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere and hydrosphere did not appear until many years later.
The final scientific paper, by Sullivan, is on "The Chemistry of Ore-Deposition—Precipitation of Copper by Natural Silicates." Although the paper lacks an abstract—indeed, it was many years before any paper in Economic Geology had an abstract attached—the opening paragraph spells out the essential premise of the paper. Work done in USGS laboratories, writes Sullivan, "...shows that natural silicates, and especially feldspars, enter reactions of double decomposition with salt solutions at ordinary temperatures more readily than is generally recognized, and it appears possible that not only the importance of feldspars, estimated to make up 60 per cent by weight of the lithosphere, as precipitants in geological reactions, but also the great superiority of salt solutions over water as disintegrating agents, have not been sufficiently recognized." The paper is brief and is more a guide to how to investigate reactions than it is a body of compelling data. Nevertheless, Sullivan was on to something and the reactions he discusses were the basis of some classic papers by authors such as P. M. Orville and Julian Hemley many years later.
Editorial, Discussion, and Reviews
The first issue of Economic Geologycloses with an interesting mix of ancillary material. First there is a three-page editorial by J. D. Irving. Here again, we read why the journal was founded, and the aims of the founders. Some of the phraseology comes directly from the circular of May 31, 1905; some is similar to the words of Ransome in the first paper. Indeed, Irving goes so far as to take "pleasure in referring the readers..." to Ransome’s article.
The first "Discussion" to appear in Economic Geology is also by Irving. The purpose of a discussion department, he writes, is to "...afford those interested in questions relating to economic geology an opportunity for informal discussion." Irving chooses to discuss "University Training of Engineers in Economic Geology." He does not argue that economic geology is an engineering discipline—to the contrary; he understands that it is part of science. But, he says, "With the now clearly recognized standing of the science of Economic Geology has come a demand for the training of engineers in this line of work and a comprehensive course of instruction in it in our American universities." Rather than laying out a study curriculum, Irving cites "...six questions to which the students of economic geology should demand an answer—and these six answers embody the main principles that constitute the science." The six questions are as follows:
1. Where are deposits of metalliferous ores and nonmetallic products to be found?
2. What are the chemical characters of the ores and the physical characters of structural materials which occur in these locations?
3. In what quantities are these materials to be procured?
4. What are the geological relations—structural and chemical—of the majority of occurrences of each type and what is their bearing on the probability of occurrence elsewhere?
5. What is the origin of these materials and of what importance is its understanding in estimates of value and methods of exploitation?
6. Where are to be found the most reliable and authentic published accounts on the various phases of economic geology?
If one were to make a similar list today it would be hard to argue that any of the topics chosen by Irving should be dropped. But a modern training would surely include additional topics such as a familiarity with tectonics, techniques of numerical dating, hydrology, and possibly an appreciation of methods of metallurgical treatment.
Irving’s discussion generated a good deal of debate in later issues of volume 1. J. C. Branner gave his opinion in issue 3, G. P. Merrill weighed in with comments in issue 4, and L.C. Glenn, in issue 5. The discussions support Irving but argue that in addition, an economic geologist should be familiar with issues such as those related to water supplies and soil formation. Recognizing that the scientific roots of studies in mineral deposits lie in Europe, the discussions also argue in favor of a fluency in German and French, with a strong recommendation for verbal fluency in Spanish.
Issue number 1 continues with two features that are as current today as they were in 1905: "Reviews" and a listing of "Recent Literature on Economic Geology." Eight books were reviewed, and all of the reviews were by associate editors. It is impressive that each of the volumes reviewed was published in either 1904 or 1905. Economic geology as a discipline was clearly very active. The literature listed, but not reviewed, is in English, German, French, and Spanish and, like the books reviewed, is all current with the year past.
The final entry in issue number 1 is "Scientific Notes and News." It’s a kind of gossip column, in which we read snippets such as Emmons’ going to a mining congress in Belgium, Spurr’s leaving government employ and joining the Guggenheim Exploration Company, and "Mr. Dean Corsa has been recently entrusted by the Bethlehem Steel Company with the examination of iron ore deposits of Cuba." Notes and News played the same role in 1905, and for many years later, that is played by the SEG Newsletter today.
|
The Remainder of Volume 1 |
|---|
|
TopThe FoundingVolume 1, Number 1The Remainder of Volume...Closing CommentReferences |
|---|
The first paper in issue number 2, "The Phase Rule and Conceptions of Igneous Magmas, with their Bearing on Ore-deposition," by Thomas Thornton Read, demonstrates just how deeply scientific some of the work in economic geology really was. Read’s paper was one of the earliest to apply the phase rule to a geological subject, and the first paper to present a phase diagram in Economic Geology. Issue number 2 also demonstrated the wisdom of the founders in internationalizing the journal; papers on diamonds in Bahia, Brazil, and albite in gold-quartz veins in Bendigo, Victoria, Australia, appear with articles on mineralization at Joplin, the San Juans, San Luis Park, and Texas, all in the United States.
The patterns of topic and style of presentation set in issues 1 and 2 continued throughout the rest of volume 1. Most of the papers in the volume concern metalliferous deposits, and the geographic range is wide, from Alaska and the Yukon, to Australia, Mexico, Brazil, New Zealand, and Canada. Coal geologists contributed two papers in addition to that by Campbell in issue number 1. There are book reviews, a listing of recent literature in economic geology, and notes and news in each issue. There are also discussions in each issue of volume 1; the two topics that most concerned the many writers were the origin and definition of a fissure vein, and just what training in economic geology should include.
|
Closing Comment |
|---|
|
TopThe FoundingVolume 1, Number 1The Remainder of Volume...Closing CommentReferences |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopThe FoundingVolume 1, Number 1The Remainder of Volume...Closing CommentReferences |
|---|
Bateman, A.M., 1955, Economic Geology, in Bateman, A.M., ed., Economic geology—fiftieth anniversary volume: 1905–1955: Littleton, Colorado, Society of Economic Geologists, p. 1–37.
Leith, C.K., 1903, The Mesabi iron-bearing district of Minnesota: U.S. Geological Survey Monograph 43, 316 p.
Lindgren, W., 1935, Frederick Leslie Ransome: A memorial: Economic Geology, v. 30, p. 841–842.
Skinner, B.J., Sims, P.K., and Cunningham, C.G., 1997, The Economic Geology Publishing Company, Inc.—1905–1995, in Cameron, E.N., et al., committee members, The Society of Economic Geologists, Inc.—75 Years of Progress: 1920–1995: Littleton, Colorado, Society of Economic Geologists, p. 11–23.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| JOURNAL HOME | HELP | CONTACT PUBLISHER | SUBSCRIBE | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
