Electronic edition published by Cultural Heritage Langauge Technologies (with permission from Charles Scribners and Sons) and funded by the National Science Foundation International Digital Libraries Program. This text has been proofread to a low degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using data entry.
BUCKLAND, WILLIAM (b. Axminster, England, 12
March 1784; d. Islip, England, 14 August 1856),
geology, paleontology.
miracle, his “creative interference” being always a
final, not an efficient, cause. Buckland's insistence on
the actual evidence of a deluge was partly an answer
to Sumner's insistence that the Mosaic records were
much more reliable than geological evidence. The
notion that with Buckland “Cuvier and orthodoxy
were triumphant”3 is an old one, but incorrect. For
years one of Buckland's roles was to keep room clear
for an independent evaluation of scientific evidence
within the Anglican community, in spite of increasing
pressures from Evangelicalism and, later, from
Tractarianism.
Buckland's major work on the geological evidence
for a recent deluge was his paper on the quartz
pebbles of Lickey Hill in Worcestershire, read later
in 1819.4 By tracing the distribution of these pebbles
as far east as London, he thought to trace the path
of the deluge and to show that some valleys were
scooped out by its waters. This paper, with its conclusion
that such superficial gravel appears in similar
circumstances all over the world, represents the high
point of Buckland's belief in universal formations and
universal events; and it is presented in unusually
dogmatic form as compared to Buckland's more usual
qualified assertions. In the next year came his first
published dealings with non-European rocks, in a
brief paper on resemblances between specimens from
Madagascar and New South Wales, and English
rocks; here he was more moderate.5 In his major
paper on the structure of the Alps in 1821, Buckland
showed that formations on the flanks of the mountains
were the equivalent of certain secondary formations
in England, and that there is a regular order
of succession in Alpine districts identical with that
of England.6 The table of equivalents annexed to the
paper is quite useful. This paper was perhaps the
most important work on the Alps between J. G. Ebel's
treatise of 1808 and the work of Sedgwick and
Murchison around 1830.
Buckland continued his dynamic and stratigraphic
researches, and his important summary was “On the
Formation of the Valley of Kingsclere,” read in 1825.7
As opposed to simple Huttonian erosion, he believed
in the multicausal origin of valleys, in which elevation,
fracture, diluvial currents, and erosion had all
played their parts. And he noted that the Savoy Alps
had been elevated from the ocean floor since the
deposition of the Tertiary strata.
In 1822 Buckland published his study of the fossil
bones found in Kirkdale Cave in Yorkshire, and in
1823 expanded it into a full-scale treatise, Reliquiae
diluvianae.8 The dedication to Bishop Shute Barrington,
Sumner's patron in the church, pointedly hoped
it would no longer be asserted that there is no geological
evidence for a universal deluge but reminded
the bishop that the deluge's physical cause was still
unknown.
The deluge, however, was not the important novelty
of the Reliquiae. Buckland considered the work his
“hyena story,”9 for he proposed that the cave had
been the den of hyenas; he not only found fossil
feces (“coprolites”) and tooth-marked bones, but
also made observations on the habits of modern
hyenas. His important conclusion was that species of
animals that now exist together only in the tropics
had coexisted in northern Europe with species still
in existence, and that this demonstrated a tropical
climate in antediluvial times, before the deluge buried
the bones in a layer of mud. Further, the bones and
caves showed that Europe had then been dry land
much as it is now. In another cave Buckland found
a human skeleton which, since the cave showed signs
of human disturbance in historic time, he took to be
postdiluvial.
The Reliquiae was well received for its scientific
content, although some critics felt that Buckland had
pushed the use of analogies from “modern causes”
too far. Cuvier was very pleased with it, although he
did not fully concede the general validity of Buckland's
reasoning concerning climate. Buckland's assertion of
the reality of the Mosaic flood as shown by paleontological
evidence, although praised by his friend
Edward Copleston in the Quarterly Review, was
widely attacked by other critics and even by James
Smithson, who, somewhat confused, was under the
impression that he was defending Buckland from an
attack by Granville Penn.10 Buckland's Oxford
students found the idea more amusing than convincing.
Apparently it needed only to be stated clearly
and fully in order to seem unconvincing; in the
popular Conversations on Geology of 1828 the instructress
says that Penn's theory was “no less fanciful
than Mr. Buckland's.”11 Buckland's geological evidence
for a large-scale force or agent acting in geologically
recent times remained intact, but he quietly
abandoned its identification with the Mosaic flood.
For several years he intended a second volume of
the Reliquiae but never published it because he could
propose no convincing physical cause of the debacle.
Buckland took part in the giant saurian hunt of
the 1820's, perhaps more as a follower than as a
leader, although he deserves much of the credit for
the Megalosaurus. He sometimes acted as geological
intermediary between the discoverer in the field (who
was often a layman) and such expert anatomists as
Clift and Broderip. His own striking contribution was
his paper (1829) on the coprolites of Ichthyosauri.12
These coprolites permitted the reconstruction of a soft