Soil Science in Strange Times: R.S.Il'in on loess and palaeopedology.

7/29/2019 Soil Science in Strange Times: R.S.Il'in on loess and palaeopedology.

1/29

R. S. Ilin and the study of loess and palaeosols

Ian Smalley

Giotto Loess Research Group, Geography Department,

Leicester University, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK

([email protected])

Having no possibility to deepen my study of pedogenesis (as I did not

have analytical data at my disposal during my exile), I directed my

energy towards the study of general problems of geology. R.S.Ilin

Abstract

Rostislav Sergeevich Ilin (1891-1937) was a soil scientist,

geologist, geomorphologist who published major works on

loess and was a pioneer of the study of palaeopedology. He

was influenced by the A.P.Pavlov stream-deluvial theory of

loess formation, and particularly concerned with the zonality

of the natural world; the continuous displacement of natural

zones was a recurring theme of his work. He was executed

during the great terror in 1937, and rehabilitated in 1956.

A major loess book was published in 1978, and hard work by

1


2/29

his son I.R.Ilin has ensured that his contribution to science

is not overlooked. He had interesting correspondence with

V.I.Vernadsky on matters philosophical, and developed

some remarkable ideas based on epigenological principles.

His loess work has a significant place in the history of loess

investigation.

Keywords: R.S.Ilin, A.P.Pavlov, loess formation,

deluvial/stream theories of loess formation, early studies in

palaeopedology, geographical zones, epigenological

principles, V.I.Vernadskii

Introduction

L.S.Berg (1964 p103) in his book on Loess as a Product of

Weathering and Soil Formation lists seven items by

R.S.Ilin. Berg was very efficient and punctilious about

providing bibliographies in his various works and this has

proved to be of immense benefit to historians of loess

research. Attached to the entry for Ilin (1935a) in the 1964

bibliography is a comment by Berg (the other entries do not

get comments) to the effect that I was not able to find out,

from this article, what relationship [there] may be between

natural zones and loess origin.

2


3/29

This intriguing comment forms the basis for this study of

Ilin and his writings on loess. It is a peculiar comment in

many ways, in particular because in the Berg view of the

loess world, heavily influenced by Dokuchaev, the idea of a

loess zone would be quite acceptable. Ilin (1935a) and Ilin

(1935b) are listed in the bibliography; Sycheva (2007) lists

Ilin (1935b), which is a major statement of Ilins view of

the natural world, but not Ilin (1935a) which appears to be

a(the?) major paper encapsulating loess ideas . What were

the loess ideas (and other ideas) of Ilin, which were largely

buried and obscured by the detritus of exile and persecution,

but effectively rescued by the efforts of his son, Igor

Rostislavovich Ilin? They are unusual and eccentric and

difficult to access; some attempts at elucidation will be

made in this paper. Ilin lived in the extraordinary times

so described in the book by Fitzpatrick (1999) which deals

with life in the Soviet Union during the Stalin dictatorship.

Ilin managed to make significant contributions to loess

science, but he did so under very challenging conditions(see

Shaw & Oldfield 2008 for some background details).

Sycheva (2007) is probably the default account of the work

of Ilin; she gives a clear idea of the six major ideas of Ilin;

no.5 relates to the synthetic subaerial-stream theory of the

origin of loess.

3


4/29

Student and teachers

Ilin started his studies at Moscow university in around 1909-

1910, graduated in 1913 and moved to the Moscow

Agricultural Institute. Ivanov(2006) and Sycheva (2007)

have listed some of his teachers, and indicated areas of

influence. He was exposed to the influence of P.Ya.

Armashevskii, who contributed thoughts on humus layers in

loess, and on ancient soils. Armashevskii has four papers

listed by Kriger (1965) and was obviously a significant loess

scholar; he may have been killed by the Cheka in 1919, in

the first terror. A.P.Pavlov offered opinions on the deluvial or

sub-aerial stream theory of loess formation and was a

significant influence on the young Ilin:

In the year of my graduation from the university (1913)

A.P.Pavlov asked me about the soil record of the history of

the subsoil. I could not answer this question. R.S.Ilin

R.I.Abolin discussed the concept of epigenesis, and problems

with bogs and mires and peat; V.V.Dokuchaev talked about

zones and zonality in soils and landscapes, and V.R.Williams

contributed on the theory of universal soil forming

processes. Ilin studied at the Moscow Agricultural Institute

until 1917; Sycheva (2007) records him rushing into a

young science- soil science- with his first work On the

problem of the genesis of humus horizons in loesses of

4


5/29

southern Russia which was published in the journal Russian

Soil Scientist [Russkii pochvoved; World List 48330], no.5-6,

1916 (Ilin 1916, listed by Berg 1964, Kriger 1965, Sycheva

2007). This must have been one of the first papers

published in the field of palaeopedology. Sycheva described

Ilin as tackling a complicated and absolutely undeveloped

problem: buried soils in loess. He (she claimed) was the first

to prove that buried soils are fossil soils preserved from

ancient landscapes. He has a claim to have been a pioneer

in the development of the science of palaeopedology;

Marsigli and Hardcastle had earlier observations but Ilin

helped to develop a science.

A. P. Pavlov and his loess theory

Pavlov is associated with the deluvial theory of loess

formation, which possibly sounds better as the complex

subaerial-stream theory of the origin of loess; Berg (1964

p.18) called it the stream/torrential or deluvial theory.

Pavlov was very interested in the loess in Central Asia

(which he called Turkestan; Pavlov 1903) and his torrential

or stream theory is still discussed with respect to the loess

deposits of Uzbekistan (see Smalley et al 2006).

The Pavlov approach deserves attention (in its own right and

because he was close to the young Ilin); Yeliseyev (1973)

said that there were five main approaches to the problem of

5


6/29

the formation of the Central European loess: the proluvial,

alluvial, soil-eluvial, deluvial and aeolian. The deluvial

approach belongs to Pavlov.

Its hard to find it clearly described; essentially loess material

is carried down mountains and out into the foothill plains,

where it forms loess deposits. A clearer idea might be

derived from the negative view expressed by Yeliseyev

(1973):

The origin of the loess soils cannot be explained either as

being the result of the action of streams of either rain or

meltwater, i.e. deluvial activity, as it is very improbable that

such streams could travel from the mountains over a

distance of 100-110 km without coalescing into larger rivers.

Even if we believe that rain and meltwater streams flowed

along the flat surface of the debris cone nearer its apex, this

would not explain the origin of loess. (Yeliseyev 1973.)

Pavlov claimed that all the loess in Central Europe was

deluvial, which seems like a rather extreme idea- but which

actually has some merit. Pavlov could have been describing

the early stages in the sequence of events which is currently

being proposed to explain the formation of loess deposits in

the Danube basin (Smalley et al 2009).

Publications

6


7/29

Berg (1964) listed seven Ilin publications, Kriger (1965) has

five. Sycheva (2007) in her appreciation of Ilin listed twelve

publications and she has performed a valuable service to the

loess historian and bibliographer by gathering together data

on Ilin:

Ilins main work Origin of Loess was published in 1978.

This work turned out to be so novel and original that many

readers who did not know the authors fate considered it to

be a contemporary work. S.A.Sycheva 2007

The 602 page manuscript for this book is dated by Sycheva

at 1934. Thanks to Ivanov we know that Ilin planned to put

on the front cover of his Origin of Loess book a

reproduction of a picture by Fedor Andreevich Bronnikov

called Hymn of Pythagoras to the Rising Sun. Perhaps Ilin

was philosophically inclined towards Pythagorean ideals.

Sycheva (2007), in addition to listing 12 Ilin publications,

selected ten which she designated his main publications

(with a date range 1928 to 1991), and she displayed these

in a table . Ilin (1935a) was a major statement of opinions

on loess, and was the paper commented on by Berg. Ilin

(1935b) appears to be a major staement of Ilins larger

general philosophy of the earth sciences; Sycheva (2007)

certainly viewed this as a major contribution.

7


8/29

Ilin was not neglected in the world of loess scholarship; for

example Pyaskovskii (1945) in a very influential paper gave

two Ilin citations: Ilin (1935a, 1936):

The character of loess necessarily shows the effects of

local, non-zonal factors, such as relief, to which R. Ilin

attributes a unique role (Ilin 1936), and above all the

parent stratum.

In the opinion of R. Ilin biological factors of the desert and

semi-desert- the scanty vegetation and the as yet

insufficiently studied micro-organisms- play an important

part in the matter of loess formation (Ilin 1935a, pp.86-

87).

Kaluga Oblast

Ilin worked on the soils of the Kaluga oblast (Ilin 1927,

1928). The location of Kaluga is shown in fig.3; west of

Moscow, near the southern limit of Bergs mixed forest zone.

To the south of Kaluga is the forest steppe zone.Ilin (1927)

was particularly concerned with the boundaries of the

podzolic and forest-steppe zones.

Situation

There were four great Terrors(episodes of persecution of

just about everybody) in the history of the Soviet Union: the

Cheka terror 1918-1921, the OGPU terror 1929-1933, the

8


9/29

NKVD terror 1936-1939 and the late terror 1948-1952. If

you were lucky, like L.S.Berg (see Shaw & Oldfield 2008),

you survived all four; if you were unlucky, like R.S.Ilin, one

of them caught you and you were executed. Ilin was killed

in 1937. The Cheka terror almost caught V.I.Vernadsky; he

was due to be arrested in late 1917 but escaped to Kiev. He

was eventually arrested in 1921 but enough influence was

brought to bear, by, amongst others S.Oldenburg, the

permanent secretary of the Academy of Sciences, that he

was released in July 1921, and went on to be one of the

most revered Soviet scientists and scholars.

Ilin was arrested in 1916. In 1919-1922 he worked in the

Moscow Gubzemotel organization and then in the soil

committee at Narkomzem- the Peoples Commissariat for

Agriculture, at the same time combining jobs with the

Research Institute of Soil Science at Moscow State

University as a teacher in the Soil Science department.

He was arrested again in 1920, and in 1921, and in 1925

and was imprisoned until 1927.

In 1927 he was deported to Siberia, to the Narymsky region,

a traditional place of exile, in Tsarist Russia and in the

Soviet Union.

Palaeopedology pioneer

9


10/29

There has been some discussion, largely driven by

D.H.Yaalon, about the invention and the early days of

palaeopedology. Ilin certainly deserves a mention in a

discussion on the founding events of palaeopedology. Who

first noticed and described buried soils? Who first realised

that they had climatic significance and could act as

indicators of past climates? Tsaskin(1997) and

Retallack(1990) have discussed some of these problems.

Marsigli has been picked out as the very first person to

record a palaeosol(Markovic 2000). He noted the presence

of the loess-palaeosol systems in Voyvodina, north Serbia,

while on duty safeguarding the borders of the Austro-

Hungarian empire in the eighteenth century(Marsigli 1777).

But it was only an observation, and a recording.

Hardcastle(1889,1890), at the end of the nineteenth century

noticed the variations in the coastal loess deposits at Timaru

in the South Island of New Zealand and pointed out that the

observed phenomena were due to climatic variations; here is

a new science slowly creeping into being. He published in an

obscure New Zealand journal and his observations had no

contemporary impact, but his work is listed by

Retallack(1990).

It was Russian scientists at the very end of the nineteenth

century and the beginning of the twentieth who properly

connected soils found within loess deposits with past

10


11/29

climates and past landscapes and described their findings in

a proper pedological setting. Ilin played a part in these

Russian initiatives; his 1916 paper alone qualifies him as a

significant pioneer (as Sycheva 2007 claimed). Lysenko

(1971, p.7) has given some views on the beginnings of

palaeopedology. He proposed that a stratigraphic division of

the loess strata on the Russian Plain was first attempted by

Nabokikh (1911), who singled out in Ukraine one horizon of

buried soil and two horizons of loess. He later (Nabokikh

1915) distinguished in the Ukrainian loess two horizons of

buried soils and three horizons of loess. He established that

the structure of the upper part of the loess stratum was not

quite the same in the glacial and in the periglacial regions.

In the latter region the upper loess was separated from the

middle loess by a buried soil. In the glacial region, the

stratigraphic scheme was different: upper loess, fossil soil

with boulders, morainic loam, and middle loess. It was

proposed that a glacial period must have intervened

between the periods of deposition of the middle and the

upper loess.

Krokos (1916) refined Nabokikhs scheme and distinguished

four stages of loess, which were related to four glacial

periods. He connected the formation of each stage of loess

with a glacial advance. As Krokos was publishing his material

about the Ukrainian loess Ilin (1916) was making similar

11


12/29

observations about the loess in southern Russia. Ilin and

Krokos were both significant palaeopedological pioneers.

Both were eliminated in the Great Terror.

Zones and zonality

The original Dokuchaev concept of soil science contained

several precepts; soil as a natural body, the idea of

horizonation developing in a soil system, and the idea of soil

zones, essentially controlled by climatic variations (zonation

developing in horizontal and vertical planes). The zonal idea

has been very important in Russian science since the time of

Dokuchaev. Lysenko (1971, p.8) wrote that.. The great

merit of Dokuchaev was his discovery of the zonal character

of the distribution of soils. Zones were important in the Berg

concept of geography, the idea of a loess zone is very much

a soil science idea, in contrast to the Pavlov approach which

looked to loess deposits, and was promoting a geological

idea. The Pavlov and Berg approaches were essentially

incompatible, in particular because Pavlovs was essentially

an event based approach to loess formation and distribution.

The zonal idea was very strong with Soviet loess scholars;

N.I.Kriger, that most prolific of loess investigators, was very

attached to the idea of a zonal index which would control the

development of loess (Kriger 1965). The idea carries

through; major Russian loess investigators retain a

12


13/29

connection to the idea of zonality: Dokuchaev to Berg to

Kriger to Velichko to Makeev.

Velichko has written:

During the last glacial maximum the following three natural

belts formed in the eastern hemisphere under the impact of

decreased temperatures and increased aridity The zonal

structure of the earth simplified considerably at this time

and was replaced by a hyperzone. (Velichko 1987, p.18).

The zonal concept invites generalizations (as Velichko

demonstrates): the movement of zones- simply a spatial

manifestation of climate change. At one reference point the

climate is observed to vary- or become warmer or cooler.

Zones move relative to this point. The climate is constantly

changing, therefore the zones are constantly in motion; and,

in fact, the spatial motion is the same as the temporal

motion. A zone that moves in space inevitably moves in

time.

Berg, surely one of the great zone makers, divided the

lowlands of the Northern Hemisphere into twelve zones (see

fig.2 & Lysenko 1971, p.9): 1, Tundra; 2, forests of

temperate climate; 3, forest steppe; 4, steppe; 5,

Mediterranean; 6, semi-desert; 7, deserts of the temperate

belt; 8, sub-tropical forests; 9, tropical forests; 10, tropical

steppes; 11, tropical forest steppe/ savanna; 12, tropical

13


14/29

rain forest. Bergs great work on the Geographical Zones of

the USSR was at the centre of the Bergist approach to

geography, an important aspect of his landscape science . It

impressed the concepts of zonality firmly on to Russian

geography and landscape studies. Ilin features, in a small

way, in the great work: (from the German edition

1958,p.235)

Iljin betrachtet die Strukturlehme um Moskau als

Ubergangstypen zu den podsolierten Waldsteppenboden mit

Nussstruktur des B-Horizontes, er mochte in diesen

Bildungen, die er am Nordabfall der Klin-Dmitrower-Hohe

beobachtete, Spuren alter Steppen sehan.

Bergs zonality was a fairly straightforward latitudinal

zonality. The Ilin approach to zonality carried it into much

more fanciful regions. It is important to understand just how

important the zonal idea was in the early years of pedology

and palaeopedology; Boulaine 1989, p156) wrote:

A la fin de sa vie, Dokouchaev avait enonce la theorie de la

zonalite des sols dans un texte largement diffuse en

France et en Allemagne. Cette notion eut un tres grande

succes; cetait un moyen dexposition commode des faits et

qui avait lavantage de bien montrer loriginalite des sols par

rapport aux roches dont Humboldt avait montre lubiquite.

14


15/29

Les climatalogues et les biologistes se firent un plaisir de la

vulgariser. La zonalite regna donc pendant toute la periode

de 1900-1950, elle apparut meme un moment comme la

notion centrale de la Pedologie. Nous verrons quil faut,

actuellement, la nuancer serieusement. (IS emphasis).

Natural bodies

Like zones, natural bodies were much discussed by

Vernadsky, Berg and Ilin and contemporary scholars. This is

another basic Dokuchaev concept and carries with it

Dokuchaevs immense influence. He certainly wrote of soil as

a natural body. Vernadsky deployed the concept, he wrote:

It is the concept of a natural body(Vernadskys italics). We

shall name so.. any object logically distinct from its

environment; formed as a result of a regular natural process

taking place in the biosphere or generally in the Earths

crust.

Real science is built up through identifying natural bodies,

and in scientific work it is important to simultaneously take

into consideration both the concepts corresponding to

natural bodies and the really existing, scientifically defined

natural bodies. V.I.Vernadsky (1997, p.162)

So loess is a natural body; it could be argued that what Von

Leonard did early in the nineteenth century by identifying

15


16/29

and naming loess was describing a natural body- some part

of the biosphere/earths crust that could/should be defined

and studied and explained.

Epigema(epigenic regions); epigenological principles

Here are some more terminological problems; what did Ilin

mean by epigema? what were epigenological principles?

Abolin (1914) applied an epigenological classification to

mires/bogs/peats, and as a teacher of Ilin probably

introduced the epigenological idea to his pupil. Abolin

proposed some additions to landscape science as started

almost simultaneously by Berg in Russia and Passarge in

Germany in 1913. He created a hierarchical classification of

landscape units- the largest being the epigenema,

comprising the whole Earth; this was divided into life zones.

One has to speculate that Abolin was very influential in the

intellectual development of Ilin. Abolin, like his illustrious

pupil, did not survive the Great Terror and was executed in

1939; he was probably killed for being an Latvian.

Where did Ilin go on his epigenological journey? Ivanov

(2007) has attempted a form of summary of Ilins main

ideas and this can be reworked. The small book Space and

Time as the Basis of Soil Classification and the

Epigenological Principle of Nature (Ilin 2002) contains a

distillation of Ilins thought. It is a pocket edition with a

16


17/29

portrait of the author on the front cover. It contains an

abstract sent by the exiled Ilin to the Second International

Congress of Soil Science in Moscow 1932. Comments on this

abstract were provided by I.A.Krupenikov, and the forward

devoted to the literary heritage of Ilin was prepared by his

son, I.R.Ilin. Ivanov (2006) has commented on the

Krupenikov comments; further comments are added here

but the Ilin proposals, surviving translations and

commentary, remain obscure and difficult . Ivanov (2006)

suggested that the publication of Ilin (2002) 70 years after

composition was justified by the power and novelty of Ilins

ideas. There are nine statements (here in an extremely

abbreviated form):

1. Soil is the central core and a symbol of the epigema. At

once a difficult term; Ivanov has epigema denote surface

formations; it obviously derives from epigene which means

formed, originating, or occurring on or just below the

surface of the earth (Greek: epigenes). An epigenological

classification would be a classification of the upper portion/

surficial parts of the earth, or a classification based on these

upper parts. Maybe the basic claim could be reworked to

soil science is the most important part of geomorphology.

I.R.Ilin did appear to claim that R.S.Ilin had invented

17


18/29

geomorphology but there were probably translation

problems related to his statement.

2. Space-time relationships are the basis of the Universe. In

reduced form, these categories are manifested on the

Earths surface and in soils.

3. The soil profile reflects the quantity and quality of the

energy emitted by the Sun in particular time periods (during

the geological cycles) and in space (the distances between

the Earth and the Sun). Vertical and horizontal soil zones

are, in essence, planes shifting in time and space. Modern

soil zonality is a result of interaction between the vertical

and horizontal planes (these must be the planes which

puzzled Berg.)

4. A concept of the analogy between local physiographic

and global natural axes was advanced. Thus, local divides

are analogues of the Earths poles (local poles), and local

bases of erosion are analogues of the equator (local

equators).

5. According to Ilin, the geological processes renew nature

and create new subsoil.. (this predated the

Chesworth(1982) idea that related the worlds good soils to

18


19/29

recent geological activity). Local and global axes and focal

points are shifted in space and time in relation to the orbital

position of the Earth, fluctuations in sea level, and tectonic

movements. Ivanov (2006) pointed out that, at that time (in

1932) the only other person developing the ideas of orbital

cycles was Milutin Milankovitch.

6. The law of zonality governs the distribution of soils on

horizontal and vertical planes.

7. Climate is the major factor of pedogenesis; its action is,

however, uneven in space and time.

8. The epigenological principle- according to which the

chains of epigemas of different scales have their end in the

zero point corresponding to sea level at the equator. He

argued that the chain of epigemas is limitless in time and

space.

9. Every finite segment of a chain of epigemas can be

extended in any direction: from the pole to the equator,

from the equator to the pole, and beyond their limits. In one

of his letters, Ilin considered the pedosphere as the first

and foremost carrier of life; it lives its own life and serves as

the source of life for others.

19


20/29

For a more substantial discussion of the nine points see

Ivanov (2006), or Ilin (2002). Ivanov suggested that these

statements by Ilin, along with Ilin (1935b), appear to be

the most philosophical and mysterious work in soil science.

V.I.Vernadsky

Vernadsky taught mineralogy at Moscow University from

1895 to 1911. Ilin was a student at the university from

perhaps 1910 to 1913; it seems possible that Vernadsky

taught mineralogy to Ilin. Some correspondence with

Vernadsky has been published; among the topics discussed

was the problem of the origin of loess.

Vernadsky was attracted to the idea of natural bodies (as

was Dokuchaev).

The Vernadsky archive at the Russian Academy of Sciences

contains letters from Ilin (see in particular

It appears that Vernadsky was influenced by A.P.Pavlov; the

idea for which Vernadsky is mostly remembered and

honoured is the biosphere and this owes a lot to Pavlovs

concept of the anthropogenic era- a concept which has

contemporary relevance. Pavlov contrived to influence both

Vernadsky and Ilin, both of whom turned out to have

speculative and imaginative aspects of their characters.

20


21/29

Commentary

Berg (1964), that great window on to the history of Russian

loess studies, allows several glimpses of the work of Ilin

(Berg 1964,p.16,18). R.S.Ilin (1935a, p.80) [has] even

called the Richthofen theory by the name of aeolian-

proluvial or stream-aeolian. Among our [Russian]

proponents of the aeolian hypothesis, many attributed some

subordinate importance to deluvial processes.

The deluvial hypothesis, in some form at least, is supported

by Armashevskii (1881, 1883, 1903) by R.S.Ilin (1930,

1935a, 1936). Authorities who propound other theories give

nevertheless some greater or lesser attention to deluvial

processes also (Berg 1964)

The stream-aeolian term used by Ilin to describe the

Richthofen theory appears to offer a considerable insight.

The origin of loess is still being discussed;

Ilin wrote extensively on loess. Ilin was persecuted,

imprisoned, exiled and executed. No sensible reason has

been found for the persecution, imprisonment, exile or

execution, but in the time of the terrors no reason was

required; many Soviet earth scientists were arbitrarily

eliminated. Recent Russian publications have drawn

attention to Ilin and his ideas, in particular Sycheva(2007),

21


22/29

Ivanov (2006) Sergeev(1966) wrote a biographical article

to celebrate the Ilin 75th birthday- but this gave his death as

1944 and has been criticised by I.R.Ilin as spreading KGB

propaganda; for some reason the true date of his death had

to be concealed.

All over the world the top one metre of surficial material is

mapped and classified via soil science and soil classification.

If, all over the world, there existed a classification of the top

ten metres this could be an epigenological classification. One

could see the attraction of this idea to Abolin, with respect to

peat deposits, and to Ilin, with respect to loess deposits. A

classification between soil and geology. A classification which

moves loess from being a mere soil, as it might be in a

simple zonal classification, to being a special material in a

special region, in the epigenic zone, in the epigema. Loess

would be a special material in the Pavlov style. Abolin and

Pavlov influences come together.

References

Abolin, R.I. 1914. An attempt at an epigenological

classification of bogs. Bolotovedenie [Peatland science;

Minsk; World List 8511] 3, 1-55. (in Russian).

22


23/29

Armashevskii, P.Ya. 1881. Orography of the Chernigov

province in relation to loess distribution. Zapiski Kievskogo

Obshchestva Estestvoispytatelei [World List 58307] 6, no.3

(protokol zasedaniya 16 maya 1881) (in Russian).

Armashevskii, P.Ya. 1883. Geological outline of Chernigov

province. Zapiski Kievskogo Obshchestva Estestvoispytatelei

7, no.1. (in Russian)

Armashevskii, P.Ya. 1903. General geological map of

Russia: Folio 46: Poltava-Kharkov-Obayan Trudy

Geologicheskogo Komiteta [World List 54539] 15,no.1

(about loess pp.222-246) (in Russian).

Berg, L.S. 1947. Geographical Zones of the USSR. OGIS

Moscow, 3rd.ed. 865p. (in Russian: German edition Die

geographischen Zonen der Sowjetunion. Teubner Leipzig

840p. 1958)

Berg, L.S. 1964. Loess as a Product of Weathering and Soil

Formation. Israel Program for Scientific Translations,

Jerusalem 207p.

Chesworth, W. 1982. Late Cenozoic geology and the

second oldest profession. Geoscience Canada 9, 124-132.

23


24/29

Feofilaktov, K.M. 1879. Geological investigations in

Lybensk district of Poltavsk province. Kiev 69p.

Fitzpatrick, S. 1999. Everyday Stalinism: Ordinary Life in

Extraordinary Times: Soviet Russia in the 1930s. Oxford

University Press 310p.

Ilin, I.R. 1988. A selection from the correspondence of

V.I.Vernadsky and R.S.Ilin. Pochvovedenie, for 1988, no.8,

103-108.(in Russian).

Ilin, I.R. 1990. Along a Thorny Path. Shtiintsa Chisinau

112p. (in Russian).

Ilin, I.R., Krupenikov, I.A.(eds.) 1978. The Origin of Loess;

From a History of Questions. Nauka Moscow 226p. (in

Russian).

Ilin, R.S. 1916. Genesis of humus horizons of the southern

Russian loess. Russkii Pochvoved (Russian Pedologist) no.5-

6, 135-141.(in Russian).

24


25/29

Ilin, R.S. 1927. Boundaries of the Podzolic and Forest-

Steppe zones: soils of the Kaluga oblast. Pochvovedenie, for

1927, no.3, 5-28. (in Russian).

Ilin, R.S. 1935a. The origin of loess, in the light of the

doctrine about natural zones that shift in space and time.

Pochvovedenie, for 1935, no.1. 80-100 (in Russian).

Ilin, R.S. 1935b. Recent displacement of zones.

Zemlevedenie 37 (2) 113-144 (in Russian).

Ilin, R.S. 1936. The fundamental regularity of distribution

of upper strata and soils according to relief(age) in

sculptured(denudation) plains. Pochvovedenie, for 1936,

no.4. 588-599. (in Russian).

Ilin, R.S. 1978. Origin of Loesses (Historical Background).

Nauka, Moscow 236p (in Russian).

Ilin, R.S. 2002. Space and Time as the Bases of Soil

Classification and the Epigenological Principle of Nature; ed.

I.A.Krupenikov. Litera Tiraspol 26p. (in Russian).

Ivanov, I.V. 2006. New books on the scientific work of

R.S.Ilin. Eurasian Soil Science 39, 339-341.

25


26/29

Kriger, N.I. 1965. Loess, its Characteristics and Relation to

the Geographical Environment. Nauka Moscow 296p. (in

Russian; bibliography[pp. 255-294] published as Loess

Letter Supplement 13, 1986).

Krokos, V.I. 1916. Data on the geology of the Tiraspol

county in the Kherson province. Geologicheskii Vestnik,

vol.2, Kiev (in Russian).

Krupenikov, I.A.(ed.) 2004. Correspondence between

V.I.Vernadsky and R.S.Ilin. Tilar Tiraspol 86p. (in Russian).

Krupenikov, I.A., Ilin, I.R. 1991. The role of R.S.Ilin in the

history of soil science (for the 100th birthday).

Pochvovedenie, for 1991, no.7, 127-137 (in Russian).

Lysenko, M.P. 1971. Loessial Rocks of the European USSR.

Israel Program for Scientific Translations Jerusalem 168p.

Pavlov, A.P. 1903. Loess in Turkestan and in Europe.

Protokoly Godichnykh Zasidanii Moskovogo Obschestva

Ispytatelei Prirody, 17, 23-30 (in Russian).

26


27/29

Nabokikh, A.I. 1911. Composition and origin of different

horizons in certain soils and grounds of southern Russia.

Selskoe Khozyaistvo I Lesovodstvo Feb.1911, St.Petersburg

[World List 49463](in Russian).

Nabokikh, A.I. 1915. Facts and hypotheses about the

composition and origin of post-Tertiary sediments of the

Chernozem belt in Russia. Materialy po Issledovaniyu Pochv

I Gruntov Khersonskoi Gubernii no.5 Odessa (in Russian).

Pyaskovskii, B.V. 1946. Loess as a deep soil formation.

Pochvovedenie, for 1946, no.11, 686-696. (in Russian,

English translation Loess Letter Supplement 3, July 1989).

Retallack, G.J. 1990. Soils of the Past: An Introduction to

Palaeopedology. Unwin Hyman Boston 520p.

Sergeev, L.A. 1966. In memoriam of R.S.Ilin (1891-1944).

Pochvovedenie, for 1966, no.4, 163-166. (in Russian).

Shaw, D.J.B., Oldfield, J.D. 2008. Totalitarianism and

geography: L.S.Berg and the defence of an academic

discipline in the age of Stalin. Political Geography 27, 96-

112.

27


28/29

Smalley, I.J., Mavlyanova, N.G., Rakhmatullaev, Kh.L.,

Shermatov, M.Sh., Machalett, B., OHara-Dhand, K.,

Jefferson, I.F. 2006. The formation of loess deposits in the

Tashkent region and parts of Central Asia; and problems

with irrigation, hydrocollapse and soil erosion. Quaternary

International 152/153, 59-69.

Sycheva, S.A. 2007. Rostislav Sergeevich Ilin: A soil

scientist and geologist ahead of his time. Eurasian Soil

Science 40, 341-346.

Tsatskin, A. 1997. A history of Soviet palaeopedological

studies and their relation to soil science and Quaternary

geology. In History of Soil Science- International

Perspectives ed. D.H.Yaalon, S.Berkowicz, Advances in

GeoEcology 29, Catena Verlag Reiskirchen, 277-291.

Velichko, A.A. 1987. Relationship of climatic changes in high

and low latitudes of the Earth during the Late Pleistocene

and Holocene. In Paleogeography and Loess (Studies in

Geography in Hungary 21) ed. M.Pecsi, A.A.Velichko, pp.9-

26.

Vernadsky, V.I. 1997. Scientific Thought as Planetary

Phenomenon. Nongovernmental Ecological V.I.Vernadsky

28


29/29

Foundation, Moscow 265p (translation of original 1991

Russian edition).

Yeliseyev, V.I. 1973. On the loess soils of Middle Asia and

Kazakhstan. Byulleten Komissii po Izucheniya

Chetvertichnogo Perioda 40, 52-68 (in Russian).

Soil Science in Strange Times: R.S.Il'in on loess and palaeopedology.

Documents

Transcript of Soil Science in Strange Times: R.S.Il'in on loess and palaeopedology.