The physiographic approach to the problems of Pleistocene chronology has often been under-rated and sometimes completely ignored. It will be well to begin this paper with a quite general statement of the basis on which this approach depends. In simplest terms it rests on the fact that the deposits with which we are concerned and to which it is sought to apply the method of palaeontological or archaeological dating were all accumulated on land-surfaces. These surfaces are themselves a proper subject of study by geomorphologists. The deposits are an integral part of the developing surface of the land. Any conclusions concerning their age and origin must be consistent with the general physiographic sequence. Physiographic considerations do not in themselves provide a very close or detailed chronology, but their indications are evidently worthy of consideration in any general purview of the difficult chronological problems concerned. Your ‘geo-chronologist’ needs to be, to this extent, a geomorphologist, as well as a palaeontologist or typologist. River-gravels and glacial ‘Deckenschotter’ mark, in general, old valley-floors and the movement of ice, in part at least, is controlled by the form of the underlying surface, subject to the evident fact that ice can, in some circumstances, move uphill.
The geographical association enjoys to-day the hospitality of the Royal Geographical Society and so returns, in a real sense, to the family home. I need not recall in detail the relations of the two societies for the story has been told elsewhere. The great pioneer work done by the Royal Geographical Society in seeking to extend and improve the teaching of Geography led directly to the founding of the Geographical Association. Since then the explicitly professional and educational aspects of the subject have fallen largely to the charge of the younger body, which remains at one with its great parent society on the prime need for advancing geographical education. This subject is therefore very fitting to our joint consideration this evening. It has taken more than half a century of effort to secure a reasonable measure of recognition for Geography in this country and the battle is not yet wholly won. When in years to come the struggle is surveyed in retrospect, certain curious and significant features will become clear. The living idea for which Geography stands will be seen to have emerged as a sign of the times. The first world war had come and gone before there was any major advance in the Universities. The next two decades brought probationary recognition for the subject at one University after another in steady succession, followed in some cases by full recognition and by the creation of a chair in the subject. The period of the present war has seen further progress; to-day there is only one University in England and Wales without a chair of Geography, though the position in Scotland is notably less satisfactory. During the same period there has been continuous improvement and consolidation in the teaching of Geography in the schools. It is a pleasant duty to salute my colleagues, the sixth-form teachers, who have so successfully implanted enthusiasm for the subject in young, vigorous, and flexible minds. To them is chiefly due the fact that reluctant Courts, Senates, Vice-chancellors, and Deans have been forced to make provision for University Geography. It has been conceded in fact that if Geography is to be taught in the schools it must be learned in the Universities and the number of students coming forward has rendered Geo? graphy a subject of substantial size in the faculties of Arts, Science, and Economics. These are well-known facts on which I need not dwell. They might appear to justify satisfaction if not complacency with the present position. Yet neither in the schools nor in the Universities can we feel wholly satisfied. We represent an idea or a group of ideas which is slowly forcing its way to recog? nition but which remains unpopular, or at least unappreciated, and therefore unprivileged. Ignorant or perverse individuals lurking in the backwaters of the educational stream still suffice to retard and obstruct locally. It is the
p. 213. (Io) 'An Economic Survey of Agriculture in the Eastern Counties of England, 1931' (Heffer, 1932). See also H. H. Nicholson and F. Hanley: Soil Conditions in East Anglia, Empire Jour. Exper. Agric. vol. viii, p. 60. (ii) Carl Stephenson: 'Borough and Town' (1933), p. I98. Note also Stephenson's general discussion of the problems connected, with burgenses. (12) M. D. Lobel: 'The Borough of Bury St. Edmunds' (I935), pp. 0-I15.