72 | Great Geologists
matched that of the Black Sea, the Caucasus and even as far east as the Aral Sea. This could not, therefore, simply be the
product of local tectonics; it required fundamental changes in sea-level. Exploring this concept further, he noted that certain
periods of geological time seemed to be associated with transgression, others with regression. In Die Entstehung der Alpen
he noted the importance of transgression during the Cenomanian, for example. Suess explained these transgressions and
regressions in the context of an episodically contracting Earth that would create subsidence that would in turn increase the
capacity of the ocean basins and withdraw the ocean from the continental edges (i.e. a regression). When the space created
was filled with sediments the ocean would be displaced onto the edge of the continents (i.e. a transgression). We know now
that this mechanism is of course wrong, but it does not invalidate the primary observations that Suess described as resulting
from “eustatic movements” (“eustatische Bewegungen”). Indeed during his lifetime Suess noted that the mechanisms to
explain eustasy remained highly uncertain. This is still the case today.
Suess cared a great deal for his home city of Vienna and in 1863 he joined the municipal council. One of the projects he
pioneered was the improvement of the water supply to the city, initiating the construction of an aqueduct 110 km long from the
Alps. This led to a remarkable reduction in typhoid and cholera cases in the city. During this time he also directed the regulation
of the Danube to prevent flooding in the city, a project that proved successful even well into the 20th century. In 1873 he
joined the Austrian Reichstag (parliament) as a deputy where he served till 1897. Combining the career of academic geologist
with politician required a strong appetite for hard work and Suess clearly possesed this. Waking at half past six, he walked to
the university where he held lectures from eight till nine. He then worked in the morning and used the afternoon for brief rest
and thinking time before working in the evening and into the night preparing papers and lectures. He married in 1855 and had
seven children. The support of his family was obviously crucial to his success.
His style was not to present a short compelling theory but rather to place his interpretations within long and detailed regional
descriptions, inviting the reader to draw their own conclusions. This led to his work being considered more of an encyclopaedia
to be dipped into rather than a theory to be evaluated. This may in part explain why he is not as well-known as some of his
contemporaries, especially outside of German-speaking nations. “What I offer you is little more than a number of questions;
but questions are the buds on the tree of knowledge” he wrote. This modest self-assessment underplays the contribution of
an incredibly productive man whose ideas still remain crucial today.
REFERENCES
This essay has drawn upon information from the following sources:
Gohau, G. 1990. A History of Geology. Rutgers University Press. 259pp.
Greene, M.T. 1982. Geology in the Nineteenth Century. Cornell University Press. 324pp.
Hallam, A. 1992. Eduard Suess and European Thought on Phanerozoic Eustasy. In: Dott, R.H. Jr. (ed.) Eustasy: The Historical Ups
and Downs of a Major Geological Concept. Geological Society of America Memoir, 180, 25-30.
Hofmann, T., Blöschl, G., Lammerhuber, L., Piller, W.E. & Şengör, A.M.C. 2014. The Face of the Earth: The Legacy of Eduard
Suess. Edition Lammerhuber, 105pp.
Oldroyd, D.R. 1996. Thinking About the Earth. The Athlone Press, 410pp.
Şengör, A.M.C. 2014. Eduard Suess and global tectonics: an illustrated guide. Austrian Journal of Earth Sciences, 107, 6-82.
Wagreich, M. & Neubauer, F. 2014. The geological thinking of Eduard Suess (1831-1914) between basic research and application:
an introduction. Austrian Journal of Earth Sciences, 107, 4-5.