The theory of undercurrent from the Austrian alpine geologist Otto Ampferer (1875–1947): first conceptual ideas on the way to plate tectonics
Abstract
In his paper “Über das Bewegungsbild von Faltengebirgen” [On the movement pattern of folded mountains], published in the almanac of the Austrian Geological Survey in Vienna, Otto Ampferer from Innsbruck (Austria) presented a series of geotectonic considerations and interpretations, which today are summarized under the term “theory of undercurrent”. The interpretation of these processes occurring in the deep crust of the Earth and in the upper mantle was mainly kinematic. For a long time, the tectonic passivity of the magma being anorogenic was dogma until Ampferer’s undercurrent theory changed this in 1906, according to which folds and thrusts on the Earth’s surface portray motions of the deeper magmatic substratum. In these undercurrents, Ampferer recognized the crucial forces that lead to the formation of ocean basins and high mountains on the edges of the drifting continents. In his paper on the history of the formation of the Atlantic region, he presented already, in 1941, a process anticipating what is now known as seafloor spreading.
Résumé
Dans son article intitulé « Über das Bewegungsbild von Faltengebirgen », publié dans l’almanach de la Commission géologique d’Autriche à Vienne, Otto Ampferer, d’Innsbruck (Autriche), présentait une série de considérations et d’interprétations géotectoniques que résume aujourd’hui le terme « théorie des sous-courants ». L’interprétation de ces processus se produisant dans la croûte profonde de la terre et dans le manteau supérieur était principalement cinématique. Longtemps, la passivité tectonique du magma comme étant anorogénique était un dogme, jusqu’à l’avènement de la théorie des sous-courants d’Ampferer en 1906, selon laquelle les plis et chevauchements à la surface de la Terre reflètent des mouvements du substrat magmatique plus profond. Dans ces sous-courants, Ampferer reconnaissait des forces cruciales menant à la formation de bassins océaniques et de hautes montagnes aux bordures des continents en dérive. Dans son article sur l’histoire de la formation de la région atlantique, il présentait déjà, en 1941, un processus qui anticipait ce que nous désignons aujourd’hui l’expansion des fonds océaniques.
Biography
Otto Ampferer was born on 1 December 1875 in Hötting near Innsbruck (Tyrol, Austria). His father was a postman and he, as well as his wife, came from old Tyrolean peasant families. Otto attended elementary school and middle school in Innsbruck, where his teacher raised his interest in natural sciences. From 1895 Ampferer studied physics and mathematics and especially geology in Innsbruck where Josef Blaas (1851–1936) gave the geology lectures. He received his doctorate in 1899 with the award-winning work “Geological description of the southern part of the Karwendel mountains”. Soon after, in 1901, he joined the geological survey of the then “K. u. K. Geologische Reichsanstalt” [Imperial and Royal Geological Survey of the Austrian Empire] in Vienna (Austria). In 1919 he was promoted to Chief Geologist, in 1925 to Deputy Director, and from 1935 to 1937 he was Director. In addition, he was editor of the “Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundesanstalt Wien” [Alamanac of the Federal Geological Survey, Vienna] from 1925–1937. Despite this leading function and management duties load, he continued his tectonic, glacial, and regional geological surveys in the field. Ampferer published many geological maps with explanatory notes of the Northern Calcareous Alps in Tyrol, in Vorarlberg, and in Styria. They are based almost entirely on his own field observations and records. He published a total of 14 sheets at the scale 1:75 000, 7 sheets at the scale 1:25 000, a map at the scale 1:40 000 and a map at the scale 1:50 000 (Quenstedt 1953, p. 258). Another strand of his work focused on the study of the Pleistocene glaciation and snow cover in the Alps. His list of publications comprises 260 titles. He was not only an excellent geologist, but also a successful mountaineer with over 200 ascents, several of them firsts, including the Guglia di Brenta on 18 August 1899. In 1902 he married Olga Sander, sister of the well-known expert on microstructures and rock fabric Bruno Sander (1884–1979) from Innsbruck. Olga was always a faithful companion and assisted him in the field.
“Hofrat” [Councilor] Dr. Otto Ampferer received many academic honours, such as the membership of the Leopoldina and the Vienna Academy of Sciences in 1936, the Eduard Suess Medal in 1937. In 1939 the Geologische Vereinigung awarded him the Gustav Steinmann Medal with the dedication “to the thinker of the depths of the mountains”. Ampferer’s national Austrian conviction was strongly oriented against the National Socialist regime in Germany and the possible annexation of Austria. The governmental change in Austria from a republic into a corporate state in 1934 forced him, like many other governmental employees, to join the party “Patriotische Front” [Patriotic Front], which was the state party then. Anticipating what will happen in 1938 and presumably warned by friend, he resigned as director in 1937 in order not to get treated and punished as representative of the hated former Austrian government. As a consequence of his “opposition” to the Nazi regime, he was not allowed to accept the award of an honorary doctorate in 1944 (Flügel 2004, p. 7). Only 11 years after the end of the NS dictatorship he posthumously regained his honour. The university cities of Vienna and Innsbruck in 1956 named streets and paths after him. Since 1983, the Austrian Geological Society (ÖGG) honours young commendable geoscientists with the Otto Ampferer Award.
On 9 July 1947 Otto Ampferer passed away in his Tyrolean home town of Innsbruck. (Quenstedt 1953). Erich Thenius (1984) refers to Ampferer as a mastermind of sea floor spreading and Helmut Flügel (2004) gives a very vivid and very personal tribute to Ampferer’s achievements. In the excellent illustrations of the principles of mountain building by Celâl Şengör (1982, 1990), Ampferer’s achievements are appreciated in addition to those of other outstanding pioneers, such as Eduard Suess or Emile Argand, and recently Meinhold and Şengör (2018, p. 8) highlighted Ampferer’s conceptual ideas of convection currents being responsible for continental drift. Karl Krainer and Christoph Hauser (2007) describe Otto Ampferer as a pioneer of geology and highlight his achievements in the understanding of nappe systems of the Northern Calcareous Alps. Therefore, it is not the aim of our work to review Ampferer’s work and to evaluate his achievements in Alpine geology, but to revive his ingenious thoughts of that time in his own words. The translations from the original text in German (supplementary data2 ), which we present here in italics, attempt to preserve the spirit and style of the language of those days. For better understanding we inserted modern terms in parentheses. Where we have failed in this, we ask the readers to be clement.
Ampferer’s considerations on the geodynamics of the Earth
Otto Ampferer was first and foremost a field geologist (Fig. 1), who was particularly active in the Northern Calcareous Alps. As H. Flügel (2004, p. 2) writes: “He saw his geological environment, its surfaces and shapes as an image of process. In his mind’s eye, the geometry of these spatial data became … a code of forming movements. Geometry and rock: the binary basis of geology, documents of movement, of history, of time”. Hence, it is easy to understand why Ampferer (1906) called his basic work on the geodynamics of mountain belts “on the pattern of movement of folded mountains”.
Fig. 1.
Ampferer experienced during his activity almost exclusively as a field geologist that only pure observation of nature leads to reflection and exploration of hypotheses and merging of individual knowledge than any teaching and laboratory work. Alone in the field and in constant dialogue with the object of observation, one formulates intellectual conclusions only to question them again. He stated: “When the body is tired, the mind is wide awake.” During these hours, and indeed also days of rest and loneliness in the mountains, his ideas of the mode of movement of the mountains took form and matured. This intellectual approach led to the dynamic considerations on geodynamics and he explains this by stating (Ampferer 1906, p. 540): “The conditions of strength of the uppermost zone of the Earth’s crust provide the natural starting point for this investigation.” His direct observations obtained in the field led to his theoretical considerations (Ampferer 1906, p. 545ff): “If we apply these ideas to the Earth, we recognize that a reasonably thicker layer of the “Earth’s crust” 3 , provided it is independent (decoupled) from its base, is characterized by its easier “crushability”. A randomly cut out wedge (of the crust) cannot support itself, but crushes its own substrate. Likewise, no greater part of an arc of the Earth’s dome can remain suspended as soon as it is detached from its base because of its low strength.”
His thoughts start from large-scale movements — intellectually from a ring model of the Earth’s skin4 — that includes the whole upper crust (Ampferer 1906, p. 549): “The folds and horizontal displacements, which we can observe in mountains, are insignificantly small compared to those tremendous displacements that include almost the whole Earth. To build a mountain at a certain place, opposing movements would have to occur from a contrary pole, which would detach almost the entire Earth’s skin from its underpinnings and make it slide over it.” In other words, Ampferer states here that, assuming the earth is spherical and maintains constant volume, every shortening must be balanced by extension about a (Euler) pole.
From very detailed geometric considerations based on a circular model and from there on a spherical shell, Ampferer concluded that the then common view of contraction as the cause of folded mountains could not be sustained (Ampferer 1906, p. 567): “There is no possibility within a spherical shell to unilaterally arrange the horizontal pressures arising from the compression of the masses in the centric gravitational field, and to combine them into two immense series of pressure. The resulting total pressure would exceed the strength of the rocks by many hundreds of times and could therefore not be transferred across such a weak medium. Significant overpressures are destroyed on the spot by crushing, folding, thrusting, etc. In addition, in a spherical shell, even with correspondingly strong rocks, a single zone could never be reduced by the full amount of contraction of a largest circle. Heim5 is known to have attributed the folding of the Alps to the contraction excess of a full Earth ring. We have already disproved this enormous and improbable assumption based on a single Earth-ring (circular model of two dimensions). In a spherical shell (spherical model of three dimensions), this assumption requires even more radical dislocation of all masses.”
From Ampferer’s point of view, the vergence of the large scale structural units such as nappes and their and their style of deformation, that is actually present in all mountain belts, argues against their formation by contraction of the Earth (Ampferer 1906, p. 570): “Conversely, we can assert that every folded belt that originates from general contraction, which is able to split, can not be uniform at all, but must consist of two threads of folds. This principle, which follows directly from our earlier reflections, is in complete contradiction with the actual pattern of the great folded mountain chains. According to the presentations of E. Suess, they must be understood as uniform masses moving in one sense. If these mountains were derived from general contraction (of the Earth), they would have to consist of two parts, at least from bifurcation to the next.”
After extensive discussion of thrust movements and of repeated deformations, Ampferer presents his geometric considerations stating that such horizontal movements, assuming a constant volume of the Earth, require corresponding compensational movements at depth, which is mantle convection. He outlines his theory of undercurrents contrasting it with the theory of contraction (Ampferer 1906, p. 577): “In addition to the theories built on such mass accumulations (mountain belts), those have to be mentioned which consider the mass movements of the surface as significant enough to induce corresponding counter flows at depth. Also this theory, like any other, must relate the formation of the first irregularities on the Earth’s surface to the forces of the Earth’s interior alone. Once these are present at the same time with the necessary properties of the atmosphere, the destruction (erosion) will ceaselessly work on the surface of the Earth to equalize the differences in elevation. Essentially, this results in a sedimentary stacking (filling) of the depressions starting by denudation from the heights. The elevations are continuously relieved likewise the depths constantly loaded.”
Although Ampferer based his reflection on dynamics, geometry and mechanics, it is remarkable that he considered thermal processes to be responsible for driving the currents at depth: (Ampferer 1906, p. 603) “Elevation or subsidence, however, may under appropriate circumstances create mass flows towards depth and their return flow etc. in the sense of a gravity gradient. … In addition, independ[e]nt thermal mass flows can easily come into force. … Only these undercurrents are the carriers of the folds and thrust phenomena on the surface. Only the evolution of lateral currents can lead to intense folding. However, uplift and subsidence are also quite possible without being triggered by these “molecular” mass shifts.”
Regardless of the energy and propulsion mechanism of the currents at depth, Ampferer sees them as the cause of orogeny (Ampferer 1906, pp. 606–607). “We see that the undercurrents are only occasional expressions and consequences of the independ[e]nt changes in the deeper Earth masses. These changes stimulate the overlying Earth-skin to movements that express themselves on the surface as depressions, break-downs, fold- and thrust-zones, eruptions, secular uplift or subsidence, according to their local and temporal evolution and depending on the material involved.
According to this view, the shape of the Earth’s surface is not the result of general compression, that varies according to the different thickness of the Earth’s dome. We see in them expressions of deeper processes, and thus consider the entire Earth-skin as the portrait of its living, mobile underpinnings.”
Noteworthy is Ampferer’s resulting conclusion (Ampferer 1906, p. 609), “that every tectonic rearrangement must be accompanied by a new cycle of sedimentation” and he continues: “This implies almost certainly that a distinct group of masses of the deep subsurface is not only corresponding to a particular sequence of unconformities in time, but also to a particular series of deposits.”
Even more clearly he states a few paragraphs further (Ampferer 1906, p. 610): “We have found that each large-scale unit of the Earth is characterized on the one hand by its overall tectonics, and on the other hand by its complete series of sediments. … If we investigate the characteristics of the sediment series with the necessary caution, we have a very valuable tool to assess the tectonics. If we apply the above statement to individual observations, we can say that, for example, the history of a mountain range, of a plateau, of an ocean, of a marginal sea, of a volcano, etc., can already be deduced with some reservation from the records of its sediment.” Thus, Ampferer already laid the ground for the sedimentary stratigraphic coupling of tectono-magmatic processes, as described excellently, for example, by Friedrich et al. (2018).
In 1920, Robert Schwinner published a paper on volcanism and orogeny picking up the undercurrent theory. In his presentation converging (cyclone) and diverging (anticyclone) vortices occur in the magmatic substrate of the crust, whose motion is driven by thermal gradients. Ampferer (1921, p. 101) referred to this voluminous essay by Schwinner one year later: “It is now shown that the energy balance in this tectonosphere consists essentially of thermal motion and is of an order of magnitude that can easily cover the consumption of tectonic and volcanic forces.
To resolve the mechanics of the Earth’s surface there are two different possibilities. Either one excludes each other displacement of the mass particles for the Earth’s interior, or one assumes such mass movements, that may occur then either as horizontal or vertical flow.
From the first assumption follows the contraction hypothesis, which Schwinner rejects for good reasons. Thus, the assumption of currents in the tectonosphere is compelling, which can be expressed either as horizontal compensatory flows due to disturbances of the hydrostatic equilibrium or as vertical convection currents due to unstable thermal stratification.”
Ampferer’s undercurrent theory, as presented in the original version of his work of 1906, remained incomprehensible except to a few, like Schwinner, mainly because of its “Kakanian” [kaiserlich und königlich = Imperial and Royal from the Austrian monarchy] style. First in a follow-up publication of 1925 (Ampferer 1925, p. 670) in which Wegener’s (1912, 2003) continental drift theory is considered, his thoughts about the driving mechanisms and the geometric consequences of his undercurrent theory become clearer. This is the first time that he talks about the creation of new oceans: “The creation of oceans could initially be accomplished by pure subsidence. This could be formed on the one hand as a depression without spatial (tectonic) separation, on the other hand as a depression with corresponding marginal “crevasses” (tectonic fractures). Then the possibility comes into consideration that the lighter crustal blocks are pushed to the side by external forces and the oceans occupy the resulting space.
Another possibility is then to push apart the lighter crustal blocks (decoupled) along a deeper-lying thrust zone. External as well as internal forces could induce such a separation. In the latter case, we would be dealing with an undercurrent. This is only possible if the opposing masses are sucked6 in on the front of the moving blocks (continents) and the rupturing gaps on the back are refilled with melts from below. Then the sea floors would present the newly formed surfaces sealed with apparently heavier magma, by contrast the continents would represent remnants of the old non-melted crust.”7
It is remarkable that Ampferer already invokes a relation to seismic activity (Ampferer 1925, p. 671): “This (the hypothesis of continental drift) is significantly supported in its importance by some results of Earthquake research and by the progress of tectonic research of folded mountain ranges, which more and more indicate large horizontal movements that far exceed the area of the mountains themselves, which makes it absolutely necessary to have at the same time movements involving large parts of the continents.”
On page 673 (Ampferer 1925) he continues to state: “Let us now clarify what this means for the process of moving large continental masses. The best-known example of continental drift is the separation and drift of America from Europe-Africa. The distance varies today from less than 3.000 to over 6.000 km. If we assume, for the sake of simplicity, an average distance of about 4.000 km, this means that in front of the front of America in the area of the Pacific Ocean, a mass of 4.000 km width, about 15.000 km length and about 60 km depth must have been removed, to give way for America. To compensate, a mass of similar magnitude must have been newly added in the Atlantic Ocean area. This purely geometrical requirement can not be avoided and, moreover, it certainly has only the character of a minimum requirement. …
Thus, such a drift of America is mechanically possible and understandable without disturbing the spherical shape (of the Earth). It thus presupposes a mass exchange of large scale at depth, … that the movements of the lighter blocks (continents) are completely caused by and carried by undercurrents. In this case, e.g., an ascending flow below the continental masses would be compensated by a descending one below the Pacific Ocean (Fig. 2). The ascending flow would at the same time be the cause of the continuous break-up of the great mass of the continent into smaller pieces and of the separation of these remains.”
Fig. 2.
The discussion presented here is preceded by a consideration of the hypsometric curve, which describes the two prevailing plateau levels ∼4.700 m below present day sea level and ∼100 m above present day sea level (Krümmel 1907). This common average distribution of elevation levels on Earth is illustrated by Ampferer (1925, p. 670) in an arrangement as it occurs in mountain belts facing the ocean (Fig. 3) who notes (p. 669) that: “... the great altitudes, however, consist of folded and thrusted structures of extreme complication, the great depths on the other hand represent depressions of undefined structure” and relates this observation to the Pacific Continental Margin of both Americas (Ampferer 1925, p. 674): “America shows e.g., on its huge front folded mountains and together a huge deep-sea trench, on its back a tear-off margin and a normal ocean basin. In front of the migrating block, we find instead of a bulge of the seabed, a subsidence zone of extraordinarily large extent.” Thus, Ampferer describes morphologically but not yet kinematically the phenomenon of subduction on the active continental margin corresponding to the “downward suction zones” (Ampferer and Hammer 1911, p. 169).
Fig. 3.
Ampferer concludes his 1925 paper with a description that anticipates important elements of the concept of plate tectonics, such as mantle convection (Holmes 1929) and sea floor spreading (Hess 1962), developed in the second half of the 20th century that shaped Earth science ever since (p. 675): “To return to the example of America, the mass exchange would have a descending, absorbing direction in the Pacific region, but an ascending, divergent direction in that of the Atlantic. The great deep-sea trench in front of the (drifting) continent would mean a zone of increased “downward sucking” (subduction). However, such a mechanism of subsurface mass exchange is probably not the result of continental drift driven by external forces, but rather has its cause at depth. In this case, therefore, the deep-seated mass exchange would set the lighter blocks in motion and not, conversely, the displacement of the continents would cause the mass exchange. Wegener8 tries to explain the continental drift only by the influence of external forces. At least the participation of currents of the hot inner Earth seems to me to be essential.”
The thermal impulse necessary for the currents is discussed in relation to magmatic processes and radioactive elements again in the paper that Ampferer (1939, p. 348) published on the occasion of his receiving of the Steinmann Medal: “Today it is easier to understand such ascending melts from the heat balance of radioactive elements and their decay products, as it was demonstrated by J. Joly, H. Holmes and G. Kirsch. …” and continues: “… in these so variable mechanics of mountain formation, it is not surprising that mountains do not show simple structures. Sites of compressive stress alternate with such of extension, uplifts with depressions, faults with detachments. In addition, tremendous melts intrude from below.”
In January 1938, the Geologische Vereinigung held a Conference on “Atlantis” under the leadership of Hans Cloos in Frankfurt. The results were published in the Geologische Rundschau (Vol. 30). Among other contributions, a map of the echo soundings of the German METEOR expedition to the Atlantic was published by Wüst (1938, p. 135), which contributed significantly to an improved understanding of the development of this ocean. This map6 provided the basis for Ampferer’s work “Considerations on the Movement Pattern of the Atlantic Area”, which appeared in 1941. There he writes referring to the map (p. 21): “As it can be easily seen in fig. 1 (Fig. 4 of this paper), the large-scale arrangement of the Atlantic sea floor consists of an elongated central ridge, from which narrower ribs branch off in both directions. .... The large structures are likely to be recognized in their outlines already today. The consideration of this large structure teaches us that we stay here in front of a separation, which started from bisection (symmetrical separation by the mid-ocean ridge).
Fig. 4.
This symmetrical separation is based on the opposite contours of Europe and Africa and North and South America.” And he continues: “How can such a widespread bisection of the Atlantic area be carried out by geological means? From the standpoint of Wegener’s drift theory, such a bisection of space remains incomprehensible. If America had merely broken away from Europe-Africa and then created the Atlantic space through drift to the West, the creation of such a bisection ridge would be inexplicable. Such a division of space can be effected only by forces, which attack not from one side, but centrally from below. A force acting from above is indeed out of any question. In the case of a lateral drift, only bulging in front of the wandering continent would be expected, but behind it at most a striation in the direction of the movement. The drift theory is not able to explain. But it is possible to apply the undercurrent theory, as will be shown below. If, as fig. 2 (Fig. 5 of this paper) indicates schematically, under a large continent mass a sufficiently strong and long-lasting ascending mass flow exists, it can break through the continent mass with time and shift it apart.” Hence Ampferer describes the process, which today is called sea-floor spreading much as Holmes (1929) earlier proposed. “At the place of the rupture, at first an up-welling of deeper masses will occur. This is the birth of the central middle ridge.” And he continues on p. 23: “The separation of the continents was thus fairly symmetrical from the central middle ridge in opposite direction. North and South America were shifted against W, while Europe-Africa were shifted towards E. This reduces the distances of the wandering continents by about half. It is believed, however, that the central middle ridge could hold its position against the Earth’s interior for so long. The difference to Wegener’s theory is the double-sided movement starting from the Atlantic central mid ridge.”
Fig. 5.
Although Ampferer interpreted dynamically and geometrically well the drifting apart of the continents by ascending melts and currents, the kinematic “downward suction” (subduction) of rock masses seems less clear in his paper. This was already more convincingly illustrated by Holmes (1929, p. 11) in his paper in which the movement direction of a modern subduction zone is presented in an excellent Himalayan cross-section adopted from Emile Argand (1924). Holmes states there: In the Himalayas and the elevated region that stretches away for nearly a thousand miles to the high walls of the Kuen Lun and Nan Shan we have a magnificent and formidable example of a phenomenon that is precisely the reverse of that involved in the formation of ocean basins on sites that were previously continental. Over this vast region, which was formerly below sea level, the sial has been greatly thickened, and in the higher parts are even doubled. It is clearly impossible that contraction could have produced such an effect on this gigantic scale; yet indubitably it has happened. According to the continental drift hypothesis a great northward extension of Peninsular India has been bodily thrust under the Tibetan plateau.
For these reasons Meyerhoff (1968) characterizes Holmes also correctly as an early pioneer anticipating ideas of global tectonic concepts, such as mantle convection. It is probably due to the often very hard-to-read style of Ampferer that his undercurrent theory of 1906 has received so little attention; nevertheless, this has been the first mental consideration for a viable way to later plate tectonics.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Ms. Heidi Düpow from GEOMAR for her help in obtaining the original literature. Prof. Dr. Dani Bernoulli and Prof. Dr. Mark Handy provided very detailed and constructive reviews as well as excellent hints. A third anonymous reviewer is thanked for their remarks. We appreciate the invitation of Editor-in-Chief Ali Polat to participate in this volume and would like to acknowledge his editorial comments and his support.
Footnotes
2
Supplementary data are available through the journal website at Supplementary Material.
3
The German word in the original text is Erdschale.
4
The German word in the original text is Erdhaut.
5
Albert Heim (1849–1937) was a Swiss geologist and professor at the ETH Zürich.
6
As early as 1911, Ampferer termed these areas in Ampferer and Hammer (p. 135) “downward sucking zones”, which corresponds to what is known today as subduction zones (White et al. 1970).
7
A few interesting historical points mentioned by Daniel Bernoulli (2017) in his review: Ampferer’s (1925) statements are very near to the statement of Argand (1924), repeated by Bailey (1936) even though Ampferer did not express them in the same clarity; Argand (1924, p. 299): “A geosyncline will result, in general, from horizontal extension which stretches the raft of sal (continental crust) ... This explains the frequent association of greenstones with bathyal or abyssal sediments. ... If extension continues, ... the geosyncline makes place to an ocean.” Bailey (1936, p. 1719): “E. Argand (in his 1924 paper, p. 299) has developed Steinmann’s views, and has pictured geosynclines as determined by stretching, by continental drift-apart, which attenuates the sial layer and eventually allows sima to reach the bottom of the sea at bathyal or abyssal depths. If such drift-separation continues, a new ocean bed may be developed, covered with products of submarine eruptions. If … a drift of separation gives place to a drift of approach, then a folded mountain chain comes into being”.
8
The personal tensions between Ampferer (1925) and Wegener (1912, 2003), derived from their different scientific perspectives, were presented by Flügel (2004) in his appreciation of Ampferer’s accomplishments.
References
Ampferer O. 1906. Über das Bewegungsbild von Faltengebirgen. Jb. Geol. RA. Wien, 56: 539–622. [In German.]
Ampferer O. 1921. Bemerkungen zu der Arbeit von R. Schwinner “Vulkanismus und Gebirgsbildung”. Verh Geol BA Wien, 7/8: 101–107. [In German.]
Ampferer O. 1925. Über Kontinentalverschiebungen. Naturwissenschaften, 13(31): 669–675. [In German.].
Ampferer O. 1939. Grundlagen und Aussagen der geologischen Unterströmungslehre. Natur und Volk, 69: 337–349. [In German.]
Ampferer, O. 1941. Gedanken über das Bewegungsbild des atlantischen Raumes. Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien math. Nat. Kl. 1, 150: 19–35. [In German.]
Ampferer, O., and Hammer, W. 1911. Geologischer Querschnitt durch die Ostalpen vom Allgäu zum Gardasee. Verlag der kk. Geologischen Reichanstalt in Kommission bei R. Lechner (W. Müller), kuk Hofbuchhandlung (IS). [In German.]
Argand, E. 1924. La tectonique de l’Asie. In Proceedings of the XIIIe Congrès Géologique International 1922. Vaillant-Carmanne, Liège. pp. 171–372. [In French.]
Bailey E.B. 1936. Sedimentation in relation to tectonics. GSA Bulletin, 47(11): 1713–1725.
Bernoulli, D. 2017. Ein Pionier der Plattentektonik in Basel. Natura obscura, 200 Jahre naturforschende Gesellschaft Basel. p. 23. [In German.]
Flügel H.W. 2004. Die virtuelle Welt des Otto Ampferer und die Realität seiner Zeit. Geo.Alp, 1: 1–9.
Friedrich A.M., Bunge H.P., Rieger S.M., Colli L., Ghelichkhan S., and Nerlich R. 2018. Stratigraphic framework for the plume mode of mantle convection and the analysis of interregional unconformities on geological maps. Gondwana Research, 53: 159–188.
Hess, H.H. 1962. History of ocean basins. In Petrologic studies. Edited by A.E.J. Engel, H.L. James, and B.F. Leonard. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colo. pp. 599–620.
Holmes, A. 1929. A review of the continental drift hypothesis. Mining Publications. pp. 1–15.
Krainer K. and Hauser C. 2007. Otto Ampferer (1875–1947): pioneer in geology, mountain climber, collector and draftsman. Geo.Alp, Sonderband, 1: 91–100.
Krümmel, O. 1907. Handbuch der Ozeanographie 1. Bibliothek geographischer Handbücher. Edited by Albrecht Penck. 767 pp.
Meinhold, G., and Şengör, A.M.C. 2018. A historical account of how continental drift and plate tectonics provided the framework for our current understanding of paleogeography. Geological Magazine. pp. 1–26.
Meyerhoff A.A. 1968. Arthur Holmes: originator of spreading ocean floor hypothesis. J. Geophys. Res. 73: 6563–6565.
Quenstedt, W. 1953. Otto Ampferer [online]. Deutsche Biographie. Vol. 1, pp. 257–259. Available from https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/sfz861.html.
Schwinner R. 1920. Gebirgsbildung und Vulkanismus. Zeitschrift für Vulkanologie, 5: 175–230. [In German.]
Şengör, A.M.C. 1982. Classical theories of mountain building. In Orogeny. A. Myashiro, K. Aki, and A.M.C. Şengör. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. pp. 11–50.
Şengör A.M.C. 1990. Plate tectonics and orogenic research after 25 years: a Tethyan perspective. Earth-Science Reviews, 27(1–2): 1–201.
Thenius E. 1984. The Austrian geologist Otto Ampferer as founder of the sea-floor spreading concept. A contribution to the history of earth sciences. Earth Sciences History, 3(2): 174–177.
Wegener A. 1912. Die Entstehung der Kontinente. Geologische Rundschau, 3: 276–292. [In German.].
Wegener, A. 2003. The origins of continents. In Milestones in Geosciences. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
White D.A., Roeder D.H., Nelson T.H., and Crowell J.C. 1970. Subduction. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 81: 3431–3432.
Wüst G. 1938. Die Grroßgliederung des atlantischen Tiefseebodens. Geologische Rundschau, 30: 132–137. [In German.].
Supplementary Material
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
Volume 56 • Number 11 • November 2019
Pages: 1095 - 1100
History
Received: 15 June 2018
Accepted: 22 September 2018
Version of record online: 28 March 2019
Notes
This paper is part of a Special Issue entitled “Understanding tectonic processes and their consequences: a tribute to A.M. Celâl Şengör”.
Copyright
© 2019.
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Wolf-Christian Dullo and Fritz A. Pfaffl. 2019. The theory of undercurrent from the Austrian alpine geologist Otto Ampferer (1875–1947): first conceptual ideas on the way to plate tectonics. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences.
56(11): 1095-1100. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjes-2018-0157
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Cited by
1. Morphological Identification of Rocks around Ranupani Village, Mount Semeru, Lumajang, East Java
2. Ali Mehmet Celâl Şengör: A geologist who unravels the histories of continents and oceans
View Options
View options
Login options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.