Hydrological and Fluvial Processes: Revolution and Evolution

Abstract

If my memory serves me correctly, this was the opening verse of a satirical jingle presented at the Annual Dinner of the University of Exeter Geographical Society in 1964. It points to the undergraduates’ perception of notable events over the previous years, and more particularly to changes in the approach to, and teaching of, fluvial geomorphology associated with the arrival of a new member of staff — one of the editors of this volume. This was a change which would have been mirrored in many other university departments in the early 1960s. It reflected the movement away from the traditional Davisian approach (which although paying lip service to ‘processes’ did so in an essentially qualitative and frequently misleading way), towards an increasing awareness of the need for precise quantitative information on the nature and rates of operation of these processes. This movement was closely linked with a shift in emphasis away from the study of landform evolution and denudation chronology to interest in the functioning of the present day landscape and the rate of operation of contemporary processes, which had been stimulated by the work of such North American geomorphologists as Arthur Strahler and Luna Leopold. Some would argue that such a change in focus was not without drawbacks, because the overall aim of understanding and explaining landform evolution was to become subordinate to the study of contemporary processes in their own right. However, it is possible to reconcile these two attitudes, at least partially, by suggesting that the subject had reached a stage where it was necessary to develop new understanding and skills before returning to a new assault on the long-term objective.

Down yonder green valley there flowed a meander that drifted out onto a wide peneplain. But our Ken Gregory he was not contented to see such simplicity within his domain.