Abstract/overview
Oldfield, J.D. and Shaw, D.J.B., ‘Lev Berg, Ellsworth Huntington and Climate Change in Central Asia’, AHRC workshop on ‘Geographies and Geographers of the ‘Silk Road’’, Royal Geographical Society, London, February 6-7, 2013
The paper focused on a critical review of the Yale University geographer, Ellsworth Huntington’s book The Pulse of Asia (1907), published by Lev Berg, later professor and head of the Geography kafedra (department) of St Petersburg University, Russia, in the journal Zemlevedenie (‘Earth Science’) no 3 for 1911. The review concerned the then widely-held idea of the continuous desiccation of the global climate since the end of the glacial era.
Berg’s review of Huntington’s book was part of a long article entitled ‘Concerning Climate Change in the Historical Epoch’. This was subsequently republished in Albrecht Penck’s German-language journal, Geographische Abhandlungen, in 1914, and then in several further editions of Berg’s work with a number of amendments, notably a reduction in the number of references made to Huntington’s work. This was in the context of the necessity of updating the references and some of the material appearing in the original, 1911 work.
As noted, Berg’s article focused on the widely-held view that the global climate had gradually been drying out since the end of the glacial era. According to Berg, proponents of the theory included the Russians Kropotkin (who published a paper on the theme in Geographical Journal for 1904) and Mushketov, the German Passarge, the American Huntington, and others. Apart from Berg himself, opponents included the Russians Veselovskii, Dokuchaev, Voeikov and Tanfil’ev, and Bruckner, Partsch, Walther, Penck and Philippson among the foreigners. Berg was evidently seriously worried that the idea of global climate change in the direction of continuous desiccation, an idea that had been greatly enhanced by the work of the eminent American geographer Ellsworth Huntington, was spreading widely among geographers and others on the basis of insufficient evidence. His article was designed to counteract this tendency.
Turning more specifically to Huntington’s book, the paper discussed the essence of the author’s thesis concerning desiccation in Central Asia, a thesis which largely arose out of Huntington’s participation in an expedition to the region led by Raphael Pumpelly in 1903. Huntington’s evidence focused on three kinds of field observation made during this expedition: the finding of the ruins of towns in locations now remote from water sources and to which it would now be impossible to bring water from the rivers; evidence for the gradual deterioration of vegetation, including trees, near oases and sands; the existence of local legends and stories about the greater abundance of water in the region in the past. Berg refutes each of these contentions in turn. With regard to the ruins, for example, he argues that these in fact belong to different periods and that the abandonment or destruction of human settlements in the past occurred for different reasons: wars, depopulations, the instability of the hydrological network. He underlines the need for thorough fieldwork and local study before such theses concerning climate change are advanced, citing evidence for changes in the courses of rivers on the basis of his own fieldwork. He also cites evidence from his own fieldwork casting doubt on Huntington’s observations concerning the deterioration of the vegetation. Finally, says Berg, local legends are not to be relied on. Ideas about past ‘golden ages’ are common among desert peoples. In conclusion, Berg emphasizes the complexity of the environmental changes which have occurred in Central Asia, placing considerable weight on the importance of the effects of warfare and social disruption in explaining Huntington’s observations. He concludes that the thesis of gradual desiccation is insufficiently grounded.
The latter part of the paper was concerned with Ellsworth Huntington’s reaction to Berg’s attack, based largely on Geoffrey Martin’s biography of Huntington. It seems that Huntington’s attention to Berg’s article was initially drawn by W L G Joerg of the American Geographical Society. The entire article was apparently later translated for Huntington by a Russian instructor at Yale. However, some uncertainty seems to attach to the latter point. Thus Huntington later wrote of ‘a book of --- Berg, written for the express purpose of proving that the present author is wrong as to changes of climate in Central Asia’. However, there was no book, and even Berg’s article was not solely concerned with The Pulse of Asia. Thus it seems uncertain that Huntington was fully aware of what Berg had written. What we do know is that he was unimpressed by the Russian attack, especially once it was joined by that of the eminent Russian meteorologist A I Voeikov who, in his 1914 work, Le Turkestan Russe, commented on the carelessness of Huntington’s fieldwork and the ‘inanity’ of his conclusions.
Geoffrey Martin’s attempt to defend Huntington provides an interesting example of the difficulties which accompany the effort to explain scientific differences in a cross-cultural context. Thus Martin argues that both Berg and Voeikov had misunderstood Huntington’s thesis, which was based not on the idea of continuous desiccation (to which he had subscribed in earlier work) but rather on that of climatic fluctuations or ‘pulses’. However, a close reading of The Pulse of Asia makes clear that, whilst Huntington did indeed write about climatic pulses, these nevertheless occurred within the context of long-term climatic desiccation, and that Berg’s interpretation was not based on a misreading of Huntington’s work. One has the impression that neither Huntington nor Martin were aware of who Berg and Voeikov were, being unaware of the former’s growing reputation as an environmentalist (especially in the context of Central Asia where he had conducted some highly esteemed scientific work) or of the latter’s international eminence as a meteorologist. Thus Martin blames ‘the slow diffusion of Huntington’s work into Russia, coupled with attendant difficulties of translation’ for Russian misunderstandings. However, perusal of the abundant references and citations in Berg’s article, including detailed page references to The Pulse of Asia, shows beyond reasonable doubt that the Russians knew English (or at least had a lot of assistance). Moreover, like most Russian geographers at that time, both knew German (and indeed Voeikov was educated there). There can thus be no question of misunderstanding on the part of the Russians. The issue of climate change was a truly international one, even at the beginning of the twentieth century.