Hutton and Sir Charles Lyell for example, selecting other Greats becomes somewhat subjective. Is the
geological mapping of a remote corner of the globe as important an achievement as discovering a new group
of minerals? What greatness should be attributed to brilliant teachers and communicators of geoscience? It
seems sensible to classify as “Great” those who developed important new theories and changed the way we
think about the Earth and its history. However, we should also seek to include some of those who tirelessly
gathered data, normally in the field (the natural home of the geologist) or the laboratory, that made the giant
leaps in geological insight possible.
My background is in stratigraphy, micropalaeontology and regional petroleum geology, so my choices are a
little coloured by that. I have also consciously tried to recognise the national and gender diversity of the Greats
in geological research. Nonetheless, if there are a good number of British gentlemen scientists mentioned,
that simply reflects the historical realities influencing how and where geology unfolded. The British Isles
contain a great variety of geology in a small area. This was initially researched by men of means at a time
when Britain was a powerhouse for economic development and learning.
I have not, however, tried to make this into an exhaustive selection and some readers may be disappointed
that I did not select their personal hero. My intent has been to provide a broad coverage of the architects of
revolutions in geoscience and those who assisted that process by contributing exceptional work.
The history of science is no place for icons. Even the indisputably Great have their theories nit-picked by
those scientists that follow them. Great Geologists, as with all scientists who have pushed the boundaries
of knowledge, were, and are, not always right in their opinions. For example, before the advent of plate
tectonics, many geologists, including Greats like Eduard Suess, sought to explain mountain building in the
context of a contracting Earth. Nonetheless, such errors do not preclude them from being considered as Great
— it is their whole body of work and adding to the progression of geoscience that marks them so. Geology,
along with other sciences, is self-correcting. Errors in the effort to elucidate that which can never truly be
known, unless a time machine is invented, can be excused if the overall effect is to move the science forward.
Of more concern for inclusion are those who hold on to outdated theories despite the mass of evidence
that disproves them. Having said this, geologists, as in many other areas of science, have to work within
the observational and technological limits of their time. Many geologists can be considered as Great simply
because they went out into the field and gathered data where previously none existed. Without new data,
fresh observation, or innovative ways of analysing old data, there can be no progress in any science.
Thinking About the Earth
The history of geological thinking is a long one, with scholars in both ancient Greece and Rome contemplating
the history of the Earth and how that related to the rocks beneath their feet. In the 5th century B.C., Xanthus
of Lydia saw shell shapes in rocks now located far from the coast and concluded that these regions must have
once been submerged beneath the sea. Centuries later, Leonardo da Vinci drew similar conclusions.