1890-1977
Roger Mark Selya
Geographers Biobibliographical Studies (2004), v. 23, p. 14-33
"...Life has been better to me
than I deserve..."
George Barbour, in a letter to
Harry Carman, 19 October 1959
Apart
from China geographers and devotees of Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, the
name and work of George B. Barbour are little known. Although his works are
still quoted in Chinese language geography textbooks used in Taiwanese
universities, his name appears in no history of twentieth-century geography,
and is likewise absent in textbooks on geomorphology, his main speciality. Yet
Barbour was hailed as one of the leading geomorphologists of his day, received
reprints from the foremost geographers and geologists, was awarded honour after
honour by European geographical societies for his work in popularizing,
publicizing and interpreting important geographical and palaeontological
findings, and was heralded by peers such as Kirk Bryan for the importance of
his applied fieldwork for the theoretical aspects of geomorphology. Barbour was
chosen to succeed Nevin Fenneman (Geographers,
Volume 10) in anticipation of the latter's forced retirement from the University of Cincinnati.
The story of his transition from central figure in
geomorphology to relative unknown is a significant tale for geographers and
scholars of all times. It clearly speaks to the professional and personal
difficulties and challenges that arise when career choices must be made between
academic administration on the one hand, and teaching and research on the
other, or the need to find a position that ensures appropriate environments and
opportunities for family members, and the difficulties of having a family
including two professionals.
1. Education,
Life and Work
George
Brown Barbour was born on 22 August 1890 in Edinburgh, Scotland, to Alexander Hugh
Freeland Barbour and Margaret Nelson Barbour (née Brown). Alexander Barbour was
a well-known and respected physician and president of the Royal College of
Physicians in Edinburgh; Margaret Barbour was the daughter of George Brown, one
of the founding fathers of the Canadian Federation, a prime minister of Canada,
and founder of the Toronto Globe.
George Barbour was thus born into a family that occupied an important place in
Scottish society, and he grew up in an environment permeated with a sense of
entitlement, place, prestige and noblesse oblige. As an infant Barbour
accompanied his parents on a missionary trip to China. Barbour received his
elementary and high school education at Merchiston Castle School, Edinburgh, a Montessori-based school for the members of the extended
Brown clan.
After leaving high school in 1904, Barbour enrolled at Marburg
University in Germany for a year where he studied the organ and German language.
The choice of Germany as place to study struck those English adults who knew
him as a curious one since Barbour had what was thought to be a distressing
contempt for German institutions and was not above letting all who would hear him know how he felt about his environment.
The musical talents he honed in Germany served him well throughout his life, as
he would be in demand as both a composer of hymns and as an organist.
Upon returning to Edinburgh he followed the liberal
tradition and took an MA (Honours) in Classics in 1911 (1910 in some sources).
Upon graduating, he was given a round-the-world trip by his father. On this
trip Barbour again visited China, to see if he should be a medical missionary
there or in the United States. His travels and his later wartime experience
convinced Barbour that the only hope for humanity lay in the practical
application in everyday life of the principles and spirit of Christ. As a
result Barbour decided that he should go to China, as had his father and
mother. To that end upon his return to the United Kingdom he enrolled at
Cambridge to acquire a science-based profession, thinking that such a
profession would be of greatest help to China. Medicine was ruled out due to
the lateness of his starting hard-science studies. Much to the chagrin of his
parents he decided to read geology at St John's College, Cambridge, and after
two years he earned a BA in Geology. Further plans for continuing his education
were interrupted by the First World War. Barbour served in the Friends
Ambulance Unit from September 1914 through January 1919, seeing action in
Poperinghe, Woesten, Vlamertinghe, Ypres, and in Italy. Near Ypres he rescued
some of the first victims of German gas attacks and participated in the
chemical analysis of the poison gas. He was also involved in containing an
epidemic of typhoid in Ypres. His work in the ambulance corps earned him the
Order of St John from the British Red Cross. Barbour was no pacifist. When his
service time was up, he accepted an offer to enroll in an officers' training
programme, of the Royal Field Artillery. However, no sooner had he completed
his training and moved back to Italy, than the war was over, thus permitting
him to continue his education. By chance he was invited by Dr. John Watt to attend
a YMCA convention in the United States during the summer of 1919, and while
there he enrolled in summer classes at Columbia University. Discovering that he
was not too far behind in his geological studies, he decided to continue his
graduate work at Columbia, eventually receiving a PhD degree in 1929.
During his studies at Columbia he married Dorothy
Dickinson, who held two degrees from Columbia, having trained under Dewey and
Kirkpatrick. Barbour had met his future wife during his visit to the United
States in 1911. They corresponded and apparently their relationship developed
and deepened during his studies and military service. The Dickinsons had
visited Barbour while he was at Cambridge. Apparently Barbour's desire to find
and complete a scientific career as quickly as possible was grounded on their
plans to marry and then go to China and undertake missionary and educational
work.
Dickinson's social background was not dissimilar to
Barbour's: her father was a well-known gynecologist who had served as president
of the American Gynecological Society. While in his fifties
he left his successful practice to found Planned Parenthood. Dickinson's
mother, Sarah Trinslow Dickinson, was a founding member of the National Board
of the YWCA and Traveler's Aid Society. She also prided herself on convincing Walter
Damrosch to give the very first children's symphony concerts in New York City.
Mrs. Dickinson was a scholar in her own right: she pioneered Christian
education, held academic positions in Buffalo, New York, and Hartford,
Connecticut, and served as the first director of religious education for the
Episcopal Church before her marriage. At the time of her marriage she was the
first woman faculty member at the Theological Seminary in Hartford, and was permitted
to resign so that she could marry Barbour. During the course of her lifelong
career she produced four books. In addition she served on the national boards
of the League of Women Voters, the United Council of Church Women, the National
Conference on International Economic and Social Welfare, and the United Nations
International Affairs Council.
Upon completing his course work at Columbia in 1920,
Barbour accepted a position as professor of Applied Geology at Yenching
University in Beijing, serving there from 1920-1927. He held additional
positions while in China: he was on the faculty of Peking University (1920-2),
and was professor and head of the geology department at Peiyang University
(1922- 3). Although lacking the PhD, Barbour was engaged at the rank of
professor based on his ability to direct graduate research, his past teaching
experience, and his publication record, as specified in the Yenching University
faculty hiring handbook (Edwards, 1959). While in China Mrs. Barbour was active teaching college-level courses, and supervising
children's services, foreign Sunday schools, and the practical work of students
studying theology education. Her work also involved teaching and coaching plays
and Christian home education. During their stay in China the three Barbour
children were born: Hugh in 1921, Ian in 1923, and Robert Freeland in 1926.
In 1927, the Barbours returned to New York City so that
Barbour could complete his doctoral degree requirements. Barbour was apparently
quite upset about leaving China. In a letter to his wife dated 3 April 1927 he
sadly reported that he went to services at the Peking Union Medical College
"...for possibly the last time I shall play for a service at Peking Union Medical
School in my life..."
During his return stay at Columbia University he served
as a lecturer from 1928-1929, replacing his mentor, Charles P. Berkey, who had
been seconded from Columbia to work for the Department of the Interior. Upon
receiving his PhD in 1929, Barbour received job offers from Iowa University,
University of Utah, Northwestern University and Carleton College. However, he
decided to return to China with his family, against the advice of colleagues in
both the United Kingdom and the United States. His decision to return was also
made in the face of his wife's reservations regarding the inadequacy of health
facilities and schools in China, and their doctor's recommendation that Hugh, a
sickly child, should not return to China. Interestingly, the Barbours did not
seem unduly concerned with the physical dangers associated with the political
upheavals going on in China. Barbour saw the decision to return to China as an
opportunity and a challenge, since he would be able to teach applied courses on
geography and geology, and work with future leaders of China as well as
expatriate children. The Barbours also felt that their children, and especially
Hugh, would be better off mentally and spiritually in China than in the United
States, since they would be able to interact with the many visitors, be they
diplomats, missionaries, scientists, businessmen or travellers, who passed
through the Barbour home.
The Barbours enjoyed academic and religious successes in
China during their second stay, but in 1931 they began the process of moving
back to the United States at a time when academic positions were very difficult
to obtain. The proximate cause of their decision to leave China was that their
children came down with what was termed "Peking fever", as did seven other
children of Yenching University faculty members. Peking fever is now considered
to be histoplasmosis. However, in the 1930s it was very difficult to diagnose
since its symptoms, a recurrent high fever with no physical degeneration, were
suggestive of brucellosis, chickenpox, malaria, measles, tuberculosis, or
typhoid. Although one doctor at Peking Union Medical College suspected a rare
parasite as the cause, for the most part doctors in China could only recommend
long-term bed rest as the best course of action. Although Barbour expressed the
hope many times over the next few years that he and his family would be able to
return to China on a full-time basis, it is doubtful whether this could have
occurred. In addition to changes at Yenching University resulting from the
Communist victory in the post-Second World War civil war, the geography-geology
programme had been terminated in 1936 due to low enrolments and financial
restraints that forced Yenching University to restructure overall programming
(Edwards, 1959).
The Barbours left China for Palo Alto, California,
chosen in part because it was felt that such an environment would facilitate
recovery of the boys. California offered access to world-renowned physicians,
who it was hoped could provide a definitive diagnosis and offer some hope of a
cure for Peking fever. Mrs. Barbour took the boys by boat via Japan, while
Barbour himself travelled via Russia, eastern Europe
and the United Kingdom, before returning to the United States. These travel
plans reflect the fact that Barbour was not yet a United States citizen and
would have to obtain a visa to enter the country under the British quota; this
route also afforded Barbour the opportunity to visit family and explore
employment opportunities in the United Kingdom. While in Palo Alto Barbour held
the position of Special Visiting Fellow at California Institute of Technology,
where he remained through January 1932. While at "Cal Tech" he was able to
devote most of his time to writing up his China field notes into formal
publications.
In 1932 Barbour accepted another visiting position, this
time at the University of Cincinnati, where he was to fill in for Nevin
Fenneman who was going on leave. Although he had been offered positions at
Dalhousie University in Halifax for more money, and in Iowa, where there were
facilities to study loess, Barbour accepted the offer from Cincinnati. The
rationale for accepting the Cincinnati offer was that Halifax and Iowa were too
cold for Mrs. Barbour and the boys, while working at the University of
Cincinnati would permit the Barbours to see if Cincinnati was a "good" area for
the boys, and allow Barbour to continue his work on Chinese geology since he
would have no administrative duties. Moving to Cincinnati did require that the
Barbours live apart for part of the year. Barbour nevertheless saw the position
as a stepping-stone, if there were jobs to be had in locations where the three
Barbour boys should go in order to attend appropriate schools and have
appropriate social opportunities. Such separations did not end when Barbour
settled in Cincinnati. Both he and Mrs. Barbour maintained active professional
speaking schedules that took them to cities all over the United States. Summer
vacations also extended family separations. Barbour's correspondence during
1932 shows that he frequently relied on friends and associates from his China
days, such as George Cressey, for assistance in identifying positions he could
apply for.
During 1933 and 1934 Barbour served as the acting
scientific and Iiterary critic for the editorial office of the Geological Society
of America in New York City. By carefully timing his editing work, he was able
to return to China, alone this time, to continue his fieldwork. Barbour's work
in China was financed in part by a Rockefeller Foundation grant, requiring him
to work as Visiting Physiographer at the Cenozoic Laboratory of the Geological
Survey of China. It was during this stay in China that he became involved in
dating the excavations at Chou Kou Tien and the fossil find that came to be
known as Peking Man. Upon his return to the United States, Barbour's mentor
Charles P. Berkey urged him not to seek a more permanent post at the GSA
editorial offices since he felt that Barbour had other connections and possible
outlets in China. However, when no academic position was found, the Barbours
returned to Palo Alto, where summer teaching opportunities were available, and
stayed there until 1936 when they went to London. There Barbour served as
honorary lecturer at the University of London, continued writing his Yangtze
report at the Royal Geographical Society library, and was a consultant to the
BBC, contributing to their Broadcast to Schools on Regional Geography series.
In the 1936 spring term he contributed a six-lecture series on the Monsoon Lands-China
(BBC Pamphlet no. 984); for the fall term, 1936, he produced a twelve-part
series devoted to North America (BBC Pamphlet no. 1065). The London location
was attractive as Barbour thought he might be able to return to China from
there. While in London Barbour applied for chairs in Geology at British
universities - the Herdman at Liverpool University, the Kilgour at the
University of Aberdeen, and the Wills at the University of Bristol - and for a
position at Trinity College, Toronto.
He eventually received two offers from the United
States: one from Williams College and another to return to the University of
Cincinnati. Barbour rejected the offer from Williams as he felt it was an
unscientific college limited to undergraduates. The offer from Cincinnati was
mixed: Barbour was invited back to lecture for a year, with the possibility of
his being appointed dean of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences being
subject to further negotiations. During the negotiations for the position,
Fenneman expressed his concern that instead of replacing him in the Geology and
Geography Department, Barbour would end up in a purely administrative position.
Fenneman's concern was directly translated into the stipulation that Barbour participate in the annual geology department summer field
trips and field camps. This he did for many years, even when such participation
interfered with his duties as dean, husband and father. Barbour started
teaching at the University of Cincinnati in 1937 and at the end of the academic
year was appointed dean of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences, a
position he would occupy for the next twenty years. During his tenure as dean
he received a Viking Fund grant from the Werner-Glenn Foundation for
Anthropological Research. This permitted him to visit South Africa and consult
on the geological setting of Australopithecine excavations in Transvaal.
Barbour contemplated taking a year's leave from his position as dean to work in
South Africa in 1947, but the financing could not be arranged and it appeared
that it would be difficult to find suitable living quarters for his family.
Barbour apparently stayed on as dean for twenty years for two reasons. First,
he was committed to making his College into the model for liberal education in
the state of Ohio. Second, he remained on at the request of the then president
of the University of Cincinnati, Walter Langsam, who requested that Barbour
stay on to help the university absorb and adapt to the returning veterans. In
1958 he returned to full-time teaching, retiring with the rank of Dean and
Professor Emeritus in 1960.
Apparently Barbour did not take to retirement: he
requested, and was refused, permission to continue teaching his courses at the
University of Cincinnati. Although this privilege had been granted to Fenneman,
in contravention of university policies, the geology department felt that
younger faculty needed an opportunity to teach the courses Barbour had taught.
Thereupon Barbour registered with the placement service for retired faculty of
the John Whitney Hay Foundation and was able thus to teach at the South Dakota
School of Mines and Technology in 1961, Carleton College at a summer NSF
institute in 1961, at Duke University in 1961-1962, at Hunter College in 1962,
the Inter-American University of Puerto Rico in 1963, and at the University of
Louisville in 1964. Barbour suffered a series of strokes in 1964, thus ending
his retirement teaching activities. Nevertheless, he also received invitations
to teach at Oberlin (Ohio), Glasboro State College (New Jersey), Shaw
University (North Carolina), and Salem College (West Virginia). Before his
strokes he even attempted to return to his China work, applying for positions
at two Christian universities, Tunghai and Ching Chi, in Taiwan. Barbour died
of a heart attack on 12 July 1977. He was cremated and his remains buried in
Scotland.
As a prelude to describing Barbour's contributions to
geography it is fitting to review the fact that in essence he had not one but
multiple careers. To be sure, some of these distinct careers overlapped with
and reinforced one another. However, these multiple careers often were in
conflict in terms of their demands on Barbour's time and effort, a circumstance which introduced stress on him. Barbour was of
course primarily a scholar-teacher who specialized in geomorphology, and as
such he taught a wide range of courses as well as conducting fieldwork in China
and the United States. He was an active member of the Geological Society of
America, the Association of American Geographers, the Royal Geographical
Society (London), the Geological Society of London, the Société Géologique de
France, the Geological Society of China, the Societe Geologique de Findlande,
the Edinburgh Geological Society, the Peking Society of Natural History, and
the British Association. More will be said below in sections 2 and 3 about the
nature and importance of his work as a geomorphologist and teacher, although it
must be noted here that an active research programme in geomorphology, and the
subsequent presentation of his work at national and international conferences
and congresses, required Barbour to be away from both his classroom, and family
for extended periods of time. As a teacher Barbour was known as a
self-effacing, humorous and organized instructor. This was evident in the
directions he included in his examinations. Barbour would remind students that
he had spent considerable love, labour and time in writing the examinations,
and that he expected them to use their time wisely in answering the questions.
He would frequently insert additional instructions in the body of the examinations
urging students to reread their prose before submitting their answers. He also
urged them to ensure that the focus of their answers was the geological aspect
of the problem at hand, especially when other aspects might be more evident or
easier to relate.
Barbour was an able academic administrator. The fact
that he remained dean of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences for twenty
years is a strong indication of his administrative skills. During his tenure as
dean he oversaw, among other projects, the construction of the major administrative-teaching
facility of the college in 1949, the implementation of BS degrees, and the
establishment of new majors in medical technology, theatre arts, and a
four-year high school training programme. During the First World War he was
charged with coordinating the army reserve officers' area and language, and
army flying corps flight training programmes. In addition he laboured tirelessly
on behalf of students who received induction notices, working with local draft
boards to ensure that students could complete their degrees in a timely manner.
More generally, Barbour busied himself with a very close management of the
college. The record of his daily activities has been preserved in his
professional papers because every afternoon at the end of the day Barbour would
dictate his schedule, with comments, to his secretary, who would then type up a
summary log. So, for example, we find that he checked the registration records
every semester, and if he discovered that a student had not reregistered, he
would personally contact the student to find out why. Regardless of the reasons
for non re-registration, Barbour would find a way to help the student complete
his or her course of studies, be it by finding financial aid, by intervening
with departments over requirements, or by offering words of encouragement.
Virtually every student who matriculated in the college was invited to tea at
Barbour's home. Faculty were also closely monitored. A
good example occurred at the end of fall semester: Barbour was present when
faculty turned in grades and only after reviewing grades did he hand faculty
their December pay cheques. He also worked tirelessly to arrange faculty leaves
and for alternative employment when faculty left the university.
Barbour was also a dedicated lay missionary. Unlike
another China geographer, George Babcock Cressey, Barbour had not been born in
China and thus came to his interest, commitment and concern for the political
future of China via a less direct route. In addition, Barbour worked as a
missionary in China in what has been described as the 'golden age' for
missionaries (Lutz, 2000). For his part, despite the financial and family
hardships as well as the risks of working in China, Barbour \vas the consummate
missionary: he learned to speak Chinese and acquired an intimate knowledge of
Chinese social life. His attitudes towards missionary work were typically
progressive. He appeared to agree that the aim of missionaries was to impart to
the Chinese the knowledge of the power of salvation, to elevate human society,
to moderate and modify traditional evils, and to introduce reforming ideas,
even when these goals resulted in fewer converts to Christianity (Bates, 1974;
Varg, 1958). Thus in a 1925 report to the British Mission entitled "The
Position of a Student in a Christian University in China Today," Barbour
indicated that "...he had come to China to learn, rather than to give advice,"
and that "...it is not our business to find answers to the problems of China.
They [the Chinese](sic) must do it. Our
business is to stand beside them and help them work out solutions for
themselves..." This attitude was demonstrated not only by Barbour, but also by
the entire Yenching University faculty. For example, in the aftermath of the
Shanghai Incident of May 1925, Barbour did not rebuke Yenching students who had
participated in the student riots, even though they had violated university
regulations in doing so. Rather he saw it as his duty to stand by the students,
to be available to them so that they could pour out their troubles, and to
assist them in keeping their minds on the positive side to which their
emotional energy could be channeled. Since Barbour's missionary activities
stressed living as an example to his students, he led church services, played
the organ at services, and acted as treasurer for various missionary groups and
funds. ' Barbour's missionary activities also extended to helping to
co-ordinate drought and famine relief projects.
Yet for all his dedication to working with the Chinese,
Barbour had doubts about whether the Chinese would ever modernize their
society. In a letter to his parents dated 22 July 1922, he hypothesized that "racial
defects of people are so ingrained as to be fundamental." The only solution to
China's problems was an acceptance of the teachings of Christ. Barbour was also
worried by the changes he had seen develop in students over the years. He thought students had become
reactionary and less stable in reaction to increasing Japanese military
activities in China and the resulting rise in nationalism. He perceived that
students had lost respect for their teachers; his evidence of this was the
students' increasing reluctance to accept their teachers' invitations to attend
dinners or socials. And for all his progressive attitudes, Barbour, as did so
many of his fellow missionaries (Varg, 1958), also harboured decidedly negative
feelings towards Chinese religious beliefs and practices, as well as Chinese
family practices as they pertained to the status and treatment of women,
including arranged marriage, footbinding, slavery and female infanticide. He was
disgusted by the way the Chinese permitted dogs to scavenge in streets and even
burial grounds.
Despite any misgivings about China and the Chinese,
Barbour was proud of his work and that of all missionaries in China. He noted
with satisfaction the large number of Christians in the various cabinets of the
government of Chiang Kai-shek and in Chinese delegations sent to international
political conferences, such as the San Francisco Peace Conference. As with so
many of his contemporary missionaries, Barbour was confident that China would
become a democratic nation, especially if it were to be guided by Christian, as
opposed to Russian, ideals (Varg, 1958). Even after the Barbours left China
they continued to support general missionary activities. For example, in 1940
they cancelled a loan of $200 they had made to the Society of Brothers, so as
to enable the Brothers to continue their work. The Barbours were also active in
the Westminster Foundation, a missionary activity headquartered at the Mount
Auburn Church in Cincinnati, Ohio. Barbour also served on the Committee of Management
of the University YMCA in Cincinnati from 1937 through 1947.
Barbour was also a consultant in many senses of the
word. Throughout his career other geomorphologists, whether novices at the
start of a career or established scholars, sought his advice on the feasibility
of projects in which they were engaged. This was especially true for those
working in China decades after he had stopped doing fieldwork there. For
example, in 1923 his mentor Charles Berkey, who served as geologist for the
First Central Asian Expedition of the American Museum of Natural History,
requested that Barbour try to resolve some of the discrepancies between the
expedition's findings and the then accepted age of certain formations within
the frontiers of China proper. He served on numerous committees, such as the
Provisional Board of African Studies, and thus played a major role in the
expansion of university degree programmmes.
During the Second World War he made his large collection
of field notes, atlases and maps available to United States military
intelligence, since his duties as dean and lack of United States citizenship
precluded his moving to Washington to assist directly in the war effort. He
aided the British Counsel General's office in Cleveland and Royal Air Force
Information Office of the British Embassy in Washington in vetting speakers
appropriate to the Cincinnati audience, which was often openly hostile to British
interests and more sympathetic to German ones. And of course he played a major
role in publicizing some or the palaeontological finds of the twentieth
century. His work on the geology of China, and especially his research on the
Nihowan formations near Kalgan, resulted in his being drafted to assist in the
dating of the fossils at Chou Kou Tien, home of Peking Man. Barbour's skills in
sketching landscape features were also exploited during his tenure on the
Cenozoic Laboratory of the Chinese Geological Service.
Barbour's participation in the excavations was cut short
in 1934 by the death of the principal investigator of the site, Davldson Black,
who had arranged funding for the dig through the Rockefeller Foundation. Just
as Barbour had feared, the Chinese took over the administration and work of the
excavation and used the funding to employ their own nationals. Although modern
histories of the excavations of Chou Kou Tien do not mention Barbour by name,
he is included in pictures of the sites, as are his sketches of the area
(Shapiro, 1974; Jia and Hwang, 1990). The reputation he earned at Chou Kou Tien
as geologist and physiographer resulted in his being called in 1947, under the
auspices of the Bernard Price Foundation for Palaeontological Research, to
South Africa to advise geologists and anthropologists, such as Raymond Dart,
involved in excavating Australopithecinae
sites. For both Chinese and South African digs he became the designated
publicist. He gave his personal reports at conferences such as the Pan African
Prehistory Conferences in 1951, 1952 and 1959, and his clear, precise pieces
appeared in the local popular press, newspapers around the world, and scholarly
journals such as Science.
Interestingly, Barbour's obituaries all cited his work on dating of Peking Man and Australopithecinae
as his major claim to fame.
Barbour also gave his expert opinion to companies,
institutions and neighbours in Cincinnati when they had problems with site
development or the need to repair damaged buildings due to changing site
conditions. A loyal Scot, in 1940 he also went out of his way to evaluate the
economic potential of the mines held by the Inveane Granniote Company of
Argyllshire, Scotland. He did this even though he had to rely on laboratory
analyses being conducted at Columbia in facilities founded by his mentor
Berkey.
While such consulting activities may be narrowly
classified as nothing more than professional service, Barbour's willingness to
give of his time and knowledge, as well as his willingness to venture into new
geographical areas and academic topics such as the origins of mankind, clearly
distinguish his activities from ordinary service, and hence have been referred
to as consulting. Similarly, Barbour gave freely of his time to the Cincinnati
community, appearing frequently as speaker at high school graduation
ceremonies. His consulting even drew on his background as an accomplished
organist. In 1961 his church consulted with him on the options of repairing,
rebuilding, and even possibly replacing, the church organ.
After his retirement Barbour became a skilled
biographer. He devoted much of his time to ensuring that the professional, as
contrasted with the theological, insights and work of Father Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin were properly preserved and published. Barbour was in part motivated to
work on de Chardin because, as he wrote to his sons on April 11, 1955 on the occasion
of de Chardin's death "...he was the most God-like man I have known and the
only close friend among men whom I have loved..." In this endeavour his major
contribution was his reminiscences of working with de Chardin, published in
1965. After his retirement Barbour also started working on his own papers in
anticipation of writing his autobiography. He completed an 82-page account of
his life up through the First WorId War for his grandchildren entitled Memories of Three Continents, which
included materials tracing his family origins at least as far back as King
Robert the Bruce (1314) of Scotland, a description of family properties, and
his education. After he suffered a series of strokes he was assisted by his
wife in editing the letters he wrote while in China. This resulted in a volume
entitled In China When... the
contents of which paint vivid impressions of the daily travails and challenges
of living in China with a family, the changing Chinese political and social
environment, Barbour's successes as a geologist, and his progress as a
missionary. More than anything, however, the edited letters in this volume show
the deep respect and attachment Barbour held for the Chinese. The letters show
clearly that this was a mutual feeling: Barbour was seen by such luminaries as
Hu Shih and V.K. Ting as an excellent antidote to anti-missionary movements
current in China during the 1920s since Barbour was both an outstanding scientist
and dedicated missionary. He edited the letters of his son Robert Freeland, who
had died in 1953 of a streptococcus infection during his third year at Harvard Medical
School, as a memorial biography, entitled Free.
2. Scientific Ideas and
Geographical Thought
Any
attempt to describe Barbour's scientific ideas and geographical thought is
complicated by a very fundamental question: was Barbour a geographer? There are
two answers to this question. Some geographers, such as Lawrence G. Wolf, who
worked with Barbour at the University of Cincinnati, are of the opinion that
Barbour was not a geographer in "any sense of the word." In addition, this
opinion holds that Barbour was fundamentally hostile to geography as a
discipline, in part because he was reported to have harshly criticized
geography. There is little in Barbour's correspondence to substantiate this
view. He did occasionally criticize the practitioners of geography as being
superficial in their work, but this criticism is not unique to Barbour. Such a
position would not constitute a blanket condemnation of geography.
Perhaps Barbour's critics gathered that he was hostile
to geography because he twice, in November 1940 and again in May 1955, opposed
requests by the geographers in the Department of Geology and Geography that
geography courses be used to fulfill the social and behavioural requirements of
the Arts and Sciences general education programme. Barbour's opposition to this
proposal had little to do with geography per
se or with the viability of a degree in geography and everything to do with
the somewhat arcane and enigmatic system of budgeting used at the University of
Cincinnati while he was dean. Colleges within the university literally
contracted with departments from all over the university to provide specific
courses for specific students to meet specific requirements. Thus, for example,
the College of Engineering and Business contracted with the Geology and
Geography Department of the College of Arts and Sciences to teach courses in
world and economic geography exclusively for their students even though the
department taught the same courses for their own and Arts and Sciences
students. Often such courses, while sharing a common syllabus, had separate course
numbers and instructors. What Barbour was concerned with was that even within
his own college any change in the menu of courses fulfilling specific distribution
requirements would upset his carefully negotiated budget for the regular
academic year and summer school. This was the only argument against the proposal
that Barbour offered to both John Rich and Richard Durrell, who acted as
spokesmen for the geographers. Significantly, his refusal did not appear to
have a negative effect on his relations with his colleagues. Once a more
standard budgeting system was implemented, geography courses would be approved
to fulfill both natural and social and behavioural science requirements. The
last argument against considering Barbour a geographer is the fact that he
commonly self-identified as a geologist in his professional affiliations and
appearances.
There is however ample evidence that Barbour was at a
minimum very sympathetic to the field. At the University of Cincinnati, Barbour
reportedly convinced Fenneman that geography offerings should be expanded to
include specific courses in cartography and meteorology; he also insisted that
geography courses be included in the Area and Language cadet programme he
supervised during the Second World War (Ryan, 1983). He actively and constructively
participated in shaping the curriculum for the BA in geography that was
established in 1939, and there is no record that he opposed the creation of a
separate department of geography in 1959. His only concern in the debates over
a separate department and separate AB and AM degrees in geography focused on whether
or not the existing geography faculty could fulfill their numerous service
duties and offer high caliber programmes. His sympathy to geography and
geographers displayed itself when he arranged for the transcription,
publication and distribution of the memoirs of the English geographer Hugh
Robert Mill (Geographers Volume I)
entitled Life Interests of A Geographer.
Due to postwar conditions and shortages Mill was unable to find an avenue for
publication in the United Kingdom. Barbour circulated the manuscript in the
United States. When it was apparent that reviewers thought the manuscript to be
too British, too detailed, and too much a part of the history of science to be
of interest to an American publisher, he undertook to have the manuscript
transferred into book form by his secretary in the dean's office. In all 100
copies were printed and distributed in the United States and United Kingdom.
Finally, in his participation on the Provisional Board of African Studies in Washington,
DC, he enthusiastically endorsed the geographic portion of a model curriculum
proposed by Derwent Whittlesey .
The case for considering Barbour a geographer relies
less on hearsay and opinion, and more on substantial evidence from his
professional life, his teaching, his research and publications, and his service.
His successful nomination for membership in the Association
of American Geographers was jointly sponsored by Nevin Fenneman, Earl Case and John
Rich in April 1939. Thereafter, Barbour attended many annual meetings of
the Association. He was similarly honoured by European geographical societies
for his scholarly contributions to geography (see Chronology below). He
corresponded with the major geographers with research interests in China and
geomorphology. It is possible to peruse his syllabi for his courses on human
geography, China, East Asia, geomorphology, principles of physiography, world
physiography, physiography of the United States, the physiography of Europe,
and topographic maps, and immediately recognize the inherent geographic context
and explicit environmental and regional paradigms he used in organizing his
materials. Although the readings are of course out of date now, they nevertheless
drew on the latest materials published by geographers and of interest to
geographers at that time.
Barbour was willing to participate in the geographic
community. One of his major outlets for his articles and book reviews was the
prestigious Geographical Journal. When
he presented his paper on the Tennessee Valley project before the Royal
Geographical Society, the chairman of the evening, Colonel Sir Charles Close,
pointed out that the topic was innovative for the Society's presentations: it
dealt with human geography. Sir Charles expressed the desire to hear more
papers such as Barbour's in the future. He was selected to write the obituary
for John Rich that appeared in the Annals
of the Association of American Geographers. And Barbour recognized that he
could write for geographical audiences. This was evident from an enquiry
regarding the content and organization of his 76 essays on various places in
China that he wrote for Chambers Encyclopedia.
He replied that, "my contributions were more geographical than geological..."
His letters sent to his sons when he was travelling or doing fieldwork also
describe separately the geography and geology of his experiences. In addition,
he was clearly identified by United States military intelligence agencies as a
geographer in their correspondence with him. His BBC projects were also clearly
geographical in content and scope.
In the end, the issue of how to place Barbour as a
scientist seems to fundamentally revolve around the question of whether or not
physiography, as an approximate equivalent of geomorphology in the United
States (Fenneman, 1938; Moore, 1978; Salisbury, 1909), and geomorphology from
part of geography or geology. For American academics, geomorphology was and is
clearly a geological topic, while for Europeans, it is
clearly not only within the realm of geography (Freeman, 1980), but also the
intellectual liaison between the various parts of all the geo-sciences (Wooldridge,
1956). Barbour's notes for his lectures on physiography suggest in text and in Venn
diagrams that he shared Wooldridge's views on both the placement and role of
geomorphology within the geo-sciences. Furthermore, Barbour's choice of the Geographical Journal as an outlet for
his articles clearly reflects this view. However, in his correspondence Barbour
clearly identifies himself as a geologist, although he also refers to himself
as a physiographer, stratigrapher and palaeontologist.
Regardless of how contemporary geographers judge
Barbour's professional qualifications and the place of geomorphology in the
division of the sciences, there is a much more severe problem when attempting
to describe Barbour's scientific thought and contributions. It turns out that
unlike Fenneman, Barbour did take the opportunity to formally communicate his
thoughts about the nature and role of geography or how to best conduct
geographic research. There is one undated, incomplete essay entitled "That
Geography Fellow (FRGS)," in Barbour's writings. In it, Barbour sketches his
view of the history of geography in Scotland, England and the United States,
describes his long-term friendship with the Bartholomew family (of atlas publication
fame), reminisces about the joys of learning through play and vacations, and
recalls his role as dean and colleague at the University of Cincinnati.
However, there is nothing in this essay that even begins to describe how
Barbour thought or worked as a geomorphologist. Furthermore, even though he
criticized Fenneman's Physiography of the
Eastern United States (Scottish
Geographical Magazine, 1938), as lacking documentation such that "a student
of a problem was assumed to know how to follow a clue," he agreed with
Fenneman's view that the goal of science is explanation rather than mere
description. Yet his publications are all descriptive, with virtually no
discussion of the philosophy of science or methodology underlying the research.
Finally, our ability to clearly delineate Barbour's approach is hampered by the
fact that virtually none of his work was really challenged by other scholars.
On only one occasion, in February 1938, A.R. Hinks, the secretary of the Royal
Geographical Society, alerted Barbour that a manuscript by J. Hanson-Lowe had
been received for possible publication. In the manuscript Hanson-Lowe
apparently questioned some of Barbour's views of the structure of the lower
Yangtze terraces. To his credit, Barbour refused ' to either interfere in the
manuscript review process or feel offende~1 that his views had been challenged.
However, it is possible to glean from his letters and
lecture notes some sense of Barbour's approaches to research. He was a firm
believer in the value of direct field observation, and especially that
conducted in the language of the place being studied. This is evidenced by his
mastery of German, French, Italian and Chinese. Here he seems to be following
the dicta of his mentor Berkey who argued that "the field is always right," and
that "gold is where you find it." The Geology faculty at the
University of Cincinnati also recall that Barbour felt that the truest
test of whether or not one understood the geological structure of an area was
whether one could sketch in detail the study area. Yet Barbour was not Luddite:
he made judicious and dramatic use of aerial and ground level photographs in
his publications and lectures, something audiences at the Royal Geographical
Society especially praised. This ability to sketch permitted Barbour to not
only illustrate his articles but permitted him to include intimate landscapes
on the annual family Christmas letter to friends and on stationery. An
important corollary of his attitude towards sketching was that one did not need
expensive equipment to do extensive or good fieldwork. In this regard he
preferred personal experience over published text.
It is clear that much of Barbour's work, and especially
that done in China, was political, opportunistic, and syncretic. It was
political in the sense that access to sites or areas of interest were highly
dependent on what the Chinese refer to as guanxi
(intense, close friendships based on kinship, village or school ties).
Frequently Barbour was dependent on the goodwill or letters of recommendation
from friends, government officials or missionaries. Sometimes, local political officials
were anxious to show Barbour what they considered to be important local
geological features. His work was opportunistic in the sense that fieldwork
depended on whether or not major construction projects, such as road cuts, the
laying of bridge foundations or railway track, or well boring, were exposing
geological features or fossil beds of interest. Similarly, car or truck
breakdowns requiring prolonged stays in an area permitted unplanned hikes and
the opportunity to explore local geological features or curiosities or to hunt
for fossils. This opportunism may account for the lack of any description of
sampling techniques. Barbour also followed this pattern when he participated in
the summer geology field trips and camps sponsored by the Department of Geology
at the University of Cincinnati. He parlayed several trips into articles
dealing with hydroelectric sites such as Boulder Dam, Tennessee Valley, Grand
Coulee, and the Kitimat project in British Columbia. It was syncretic in the
sense that he relied very heavily on the published work of others to bridge the
gaps in his own work or to provide the background for his research. As such, he
commonly argued through analogy of findings in one place to his study area. In
a letter to Harry Carman, chairman of the John Whitney Hay Foundation, dated 19
October 1959, Barbour noted that he made no claim to originality. Instead he
pointed to good fortune in having a close circle of friends who laid the
foundations of geology. He revelled then in the realization that his
conclusions and findings were the result of "the inspiration of a succession of
peripatetic geologists who beat a track to his door." All of these general
approaches to research still stand in good stead for anyone contemplating
field-based research in geography.
Barbour's work did follow a very general plan where he
would first define and grasp a problem, and only then move on to a resolution
and inspection of his findings. In his field books, assembled during his
studies at Columbia, he would start with a stated problem, list possible "lines
of attitude," cite authority on the area, describe his field evidence, and then
proceed to generalize about lithography, strata and geomorphological processes
he thought had operated in the study area. When appropriate he would include
chemical and mechanical analysis of the materials he was studying, along with
fossil evidence, and the suspected relationships between topography, erosion
surfaces, aggradation and geomorphological stages. In short Barbour appears to
have used a recognizable, albeit rudimentary, form of scientific method in his
research. He tolerated working in the field on his own. He felt that the
adventures involved in exploring and resolving problems were adequate
compensations for the loneliness he endured while away from his family.
The final characteristic of Barbour's work that comes
through clearly in his publications and field notes is his preference for
dealing with practical, applied problems. In this regard it should be of no
surprise that in his history of Yenching University, Edwards (1959) recalls
Barbour's assistance in helping to relieve drought conditions in North China
through the discovery of deep aquifers leading to the digging of some 4,950 village wells as one of his major contributions as a
Yenching faculty member. A water tower pagoda still stands over the well he
tapped on the Yenching campus.
3. Influence
and Spread of Ideas
Barbour's
influence on geographic ideas has been very limited. His work on the geology of
China is rarely cited in recent texts, and there are no records of his being
cited in any citation index. Given his career change from scholar-teacher to
administrator this seeming lack of influence or spread should not be a
surprise. As a general rule in academia, once one stops publishing, the
opportunity to be cited by others diminishes rapidly. It could also be argued
that Barbour's work on China falls into the category of works labeled classic,
definitive and seminal. This is truly the case for his work on the origins of
loess, the structure of the Yangtse basin, and the relation of the Chinghsing
to the thrust of the Himalayan tectonic plate into China. The fate of such
works is not always a happy one. All too often the findings of such studies
make their way into the established truths of a field without attribution. Hence the need to rediscover and re-publicize such works (as found
in the programme, begun in September 1991, of reprinting classics with
commentaries in Progress in Human
Geography). His research methodology or philosophy also did not
spread since there is no evidence that Barbour directly supervised any MA or
PhD students at the University of Cincinnati. He was on several MA examination
committees and his close reading of theses was greatly appreciated by the
students. The fact that Barbour did not supervise graduate students was
apparently a deliberate, conscious decision on his part. According to Attila Kilinc, who arrived at the University of Cincinnati while
Barbour was still active in the department, Barbour preferred working with
undergraduates. There is no small irony in this since Barbour had rejected an
offer from Williams College, which he felt was too undergraduate oriented and
unscientific.
It has been suggested, however, that Barbour did have a
major impact on the work of de Chardin. According to Hugh Barbour (personal
correspondence, 15 Nov. 2002), de Chardin gained some of his ideas about
religion and science from Barbour, this despite the two men's obvious differences:
de Chardin was a mystic and relied on the ideas of Plato and Aristotle, while
Barbour was ever the pragmatist, and believed that the best way to overcome
evil was to do good.
While Barbour apparently left very little imprint on geographical
ideas, it is not the case that Barbour had no impact in other forums. Upon his
retirement an anonymous group of Barbour's' students endowed an annual cash
award in his honour to be presented to the University of Cincinnati faculty
member who best fosters good facuIty-student
relations, thus demonstrating that Barbour's deep concern and care for people
and their cultural differences had resonated among his students. This coveted
award is presented at the annual Spring All University Faculty Meeting along
with the two annual prizes for best teachers. Although few faculty or students
at the university know of the details of Barbour's labours
for the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences and on behalf of students, they
do know someone named Barbour set a standard for positive involvement in
students' lives that was highly regarded.
In the end one can say that despite his relative
anonymity today, Barbour had a successful career, and one
which can provide insights into anyone seeking an academic career today.
Barbour was actively involved in national academic organizations. He had many
undergraduate students. Barbour loved fieldwork aimed at solving practical
problems and successfully transmitted this love to his students. He was driven
to serve. He was a whole human being, gracious, hospitable and caring. He was
multidimensional, with his family and his music as outlets. Barbour was
acknowledged to be a freethinker. He lived to see his two oldest sons become
university professors. His youngest son Robert, before his untimely death, also
participated in the family tradition of service: he deferred completion of his
PhD in Medical Physics in order to serve in Austria at a World Council of
Churches camp for refugees. A hostel for refugee boys in Salzburg was dedicated
to Robert's memory. Barbour had faith that he was part of God's divine plan and
drew great strength from his faith. Barbour felt the conflicts that accompanied
his multi-phased career, and felt at times that he was a failure as a son,
husband, father and scientist. His impact on the practice of geomorphology does
pass one important test: as of 2002, geomorphology is taught in both the
Departments of Geography and Geology at the University of Cincinnati. He had a
full and mixed career, and is remembered for the diverse contribution he made
and the personal impacts he had on so many lives. Geographers could do a lot
worse than remember a caring, cultured, dedicated and gracious human being that
stands as Barbour's patrimony.
Acknowledgments
Many
thanks to the staff of the Archives and Rare Book Room Staff, University of
Cincinnati, and especially Anna Truman, Kevin Grace and Kate Lindner for their
help in retrieving Barbour's papers; to Barbour's son Hugh for answering my
questions and providing access to materials not otherwise available; to Dr.
Rena Selya for her helpful editorial suggestions. Photograph courtesy of
Archives and Rare Book Room, University of Cincinnati.
Bibliography and Sources
l. WORKS CITED IN THIS BIOBIBLIOGRAPHY
Barbour, George B., Free: Biography of Robert Freeland Barbour,
Assen, Royal van Gorcum Press, 1954.
Barbour, George B., In the Field With Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,
New York, Herder and Herder, 1965.
Barbour, George B., In China When..., Cincinnati: University of
Cincinnati Press, 1975.
Barbour, George B., Memories of Three Continents, mimeo, no
date.
Bates, M. Serale,
"The Theology of American Missionaries in China, 1890-1950", in The Missionary Enterprise in China and Asia,
John King Fairbank, ed., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974, 135-58.
Edwards, Dwight W., Yenching University, New York: United Board for
Christian Higher Education in Asia, 1959.
Ji, Lanpo,
and Hwang, Wei-wen, The Story of Peking Man. From Archeology to Mystery, New York: Oxford
University Press, 1999.
Lutz, Jessica G., "China and
protestants: Historical Perspectives", in China
and Christianity. Burdened Past, Hopeful Future, Stephen Uhalley, Jr., and Wu Xiaoxin,
(eds.), Armonk, NJ: M.E. Sharpe, 2000, 179-94.
Ryan, Bruce, "Nevin
Melancthon Fenneman, 1865-1945", Geographers Biobibliographical Studies 10, (1986) 57-68.
Ryan, Bruce, Seventy-Five Years of Geography at the
University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, Department of Geography,
University of Cincinnati, 1983.
Shapiro, Harry L., Peking Man, New York: Simon and Schuster,
1974.
Varg, Paul A, Missionaries, Chinese, and Diplomats. The American Protestant Movement in China, 1890-1952, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
2. OBITUARIES AND REFERENCES ON GEORGE BROWN BARBOUR
Barbour, Hugh S., Memorial to
George Brown Barbour, 1980-1977, Memorials,
Geological Society of America, 9 (1979), 1- 5.
"Dean, and Publicist for Peking
Man", Cincinnati Enquirer, 16 July
1977. Cincinnati Post, 16 July 1977.
"George B. Barbour", Geographical Journal, 143, 1977, 307.
"Geologist and Educator", New York Times, 13 July 1977.
"Geologist, Studied Prehistoric Man",
Cleveland Plain Dealer, 13 July 1977.
New York Post, 13 July 1977
"Studied Prehistoric Man",
Boston Globe, 13 July 1977.
3. SELECTED WORKS BY GEORGE BARBOUR
Barbour's bibliography lists two
monographs, 80 scientific articles, 76 articles in the new (1950) and revised
(1955) editions of the Chambers Encyclopedia, 25 articles in the popular press
and newspapers, and 25 book reviews in scholarly journals. A separate sheet
lists some 16 technical reports and 42 "contributions" submitted while he was
on the faculty of Yenching University.
A. Scholarly monographs
1929 Geology of the Kalgan Area, Geological
Survey of China~ Memoir Series A, no. 6.
1935 Physiographic History of the Yangtze, Geological
Survey of China, Memoir Series A, no. 14.
B. Scholarly articles
1922 "Underground Water Supply
of the Tingchow and Shuntehfu
Areas", Oriental Engineer, 3:1, 8-15.
1922 "Principles of
Investigation of Water-Supply, Peking", United
China Famine Relief Commission Report, 106-110
1923 "The Tsinan Intrusive", Geological Society of China, Bulletin 2:1-2,
35-78
1923 "How Rock History is Read:
the hillocks of Tsinanfu, China", China journal of Science and Arts, 1:3,
280-6.
1924 "Artesian Water Supply at Haitien", Oriental
Engineer Journal, 5:1, 1-3.
1924
"Cretaceous Beds in North China", Nature,
113: 2832, 194- 5.
1924 "Deep Wells in the Peking
Area", Geological Society of China, Bulletin
3:2, 127-38.
1924 "Iron Mines
of Hsuan-Hua, Chihli", China Journal of Science and Arts, 2,
478-85.
1924 "Preliminary Observations
in the Kalgan Area", Geological Society
of China, Bulletin 3:2, 153-68.
1925 "The
Loess of China", China Journal of Science
and Arts, 3, 454-63.
1925 "Radioactivity
as the Cause of Mountains", China Journal
of Science and Arts, 3, 664-9.
1925 "Springs
of Tsinanfu", Royal
Asiatic Society, North China Branch, Journal, 56, 70-5.
1925 "Chinese
Loess", Oriental Engineer, Journal,
6:4, 1-10.
1925 "Deposits of the Sangkanho Valley", Geological
Society of China, Bulletin, 4:1,53-5.
1925 "Method of Presenting Palaeogeographic Maps", Geological
Society of China, Bulletin 4-2, 9304á.
1926 "Crystalline
Gneisses and Schists in China", Geological
Society of China, Bulletin 5:1, 21 (title only).
1926 "Pliocene
and post-Pliocene History of North China", Third
Pan-Pacific Science Congress Proceedings, 1780 (abstract).
1926 "Vertical Cleavage of
Loess", China Journal of Science and Arts,
4:1, 46.
1926 "Deposit
and Erosion in the Huai-Iai Basin and their bearing
on the Pleistocene History of North China", Geological
Society of China, Bulletin, 5:1, 47-55.
1926 (with E. Licent and P. Teilhard de Chardin) "Geological Study of the
Sangkanho Basin", Geological
Society of China, Bulletin 5:3-4, 263-78.
1926 "Note on
the Correlation of Physiographic Stages", Geological
Society of China, Bulletin 5:4, 279- 80.
1926 "The
Loess of China", Smithsonian Institute,
Annual Report, 279-96.
1927 (with C.J. Wu) "High
Altitude Dust in the Peking Area", China
Journal of Science and Arts, 7, 305-6.
1928 "Structural Evolution of
Eastern Asia", in Structure of Asia,
J.W. Gregory (ed.), London, Methuen, 188- 305.
1928 "Re-excavated
Cretaceous Valley", Quarterly Journal
Geological Society of London, 84:4, 719-27.
1929 "Comparison
between Evolution of Land Surfaces in North and South China", Lingnan Science Journal, 8, 653-9.
1929 "Revision
of Physiographic Stages", Geological
Society of China, Memoir, Series A, no. 6, 6pp.
1930 "Das Chinesische Loess-Problem", Festbuch fŸr Johannes Walther, Leopoldina,
Band 6, 63-8.
1930 "Further
Data regarding Deep Wells in the Peking Area", Geological Society of China Bulletin 4:1, 4-57.
1930 "Origin of the Niangtzekuan Tufa", Geological
Society of China Bulletin 9:3, 213-22.
1930 "Superficial Deposits of Yutaoho", Geological
Society of China Bulletin 9:4, 347-54.
1930 "Age of
Basalts of Chinghsing", Geological
Society of China Bulletin 9:4, 355-9.
1930 (with M.N. Bien) "Pleistocene
Volcanoes of the Sangkanho", Geological Society of China Bulletin 9:4, 361-70.
1930 "Rock Bottom in Society and
Politics, Geological Determinants in Civilization", China Review of Social And Political Science, 172-83.
1931 "Taiku Deposits and the Problem of Pleistocene Climates", Geological Society of China Bulletin 10,
71-104.
1931 "Der geologischer Hintergrund des
Peking Menschen" (Sinanthropus), Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 7,
257-8.
1931 "Origin of the Bedford Augen-Gneiss", American
Journal of Science, 19, 351-8.
1933 "The
Loess of China", XVII international Geological
Congress, Washington. Report, vol. 2, 777- 8.
1933 "Pleistocene History of the
Huangho", Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 44: 6, 1143-60.
1933 "Geomorphology
of the Nanking Area", Academia Sinica Natural Research institute, Contributions, 13,
81-136.
1934á "Physiographic Stages of
Central China", Geological Society of
China Bulletin 13, 456-67.
1934 "Analysis
of the Lushan Glaciation Problem", Geological Society of China Bulletin 13
647-56.
1934 (with P.
Teilhard de Chardin and M.N. Bien) "A reconnaissance across the Eastern Tsinling", Geological
Society of China Bulletin 25, 9-37.
1935 "Correlation of Fluviatile Terraces", Geological
Society of China Bulletin 14:4, 470-81.
1935 "Memorial to Dr. Davidson
Black", Geological Society of America
Bulletin 46, 193- 202.
1935 "Recent
Observations on Loess", Geographical
Journal, 86:l 54-64.
1935
"Physiography of Jehol, North China", Geological Society of America Bulletin 46,
1483-92.
1936 "Physiographic
History of the Yangtze", Geographical
Journal, 87:1, 17-34.
1936 "Boulder
Dam and its geographical setting", Geographical
Journal, 86:6, 498-504.
1936 "Dr. V.K.
Ting, 1887-1936", Quarterly Journal of
the Geological Society, London, 92, 95-9.
1937 "The
Tennessee Valley Project", Geographical
Journal, 89:5, 393-408.
1938 "China, Regional Geography",
The Monsoon Lands, Broadcasts to Schools
Handbook, no. 984, 40pp.
1940 "Harnessing
the Columbia River", Geographical Journal,
96:4, 235-42.
1942 "Texas
Oil", Geographical Journal, 100:4,
145-55.
1949 "Makapansgat",
Scientific Monthly, 69:3,141-7.
1949 "Ape or Man? An Incomplete Chapter or Human Ancestry from South Africa",
presidential address, Ohio Academy of Sciences, Ohio journal of Science, 49:4, 129-46.
1951 "Introduction to the
Apprentice Scholar (Nevin Fenneman)", Compass
of Sigma Gamma Epsilon, 28:2, 3-4.
1955 "P. Teilhard
de Chardin", obituary, Geological Society of London, Proceedings, 1529, 132-3.
1956 "Memorial
to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, 1881-1955", Geological
Society of America, Proceedings) Annual Report for 1955, 169-76.
1957 "Note on Mayan Jadeite", American Antiquity, 22, 411-2.
1957 "Teilhard de Chardin", Palaeontological Society of India, Journal 2
(Wadia Jubilee Number), 21-3.
1958 "John
Lyon Rich, 1884-1956", memorial, Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 48:2, 174-7.
1959
"Kitimat", Geographical Journal,
125:2, 217-22.
Archival sources
Barbour was listed during the 1950s in American Men of Science, Who's Who, Who's Who in American Education, and Who's Who (London). Barbour's papers are contained in some 35 Hollinger boxes housed in the Archives and Rare Book Department of the University of Cincinnati, 808 Carl Blegen Library. There are three files of personal materials housed in the Department of Geology, 500 Geology-Physics Building, University of Cincinnati. One file of correspondence is found in the Kenneth Caster Library, Department of Geology, University of Cincinnati. Copies of Barbour's papers relating to his life and work in China are found in the China Records Project, Yale University Divinity School Library and at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Chronology
1890 Born 22 August, Edinburgh, Scotland
1904 Studied music and German, Marburg University
1911 AM Classics, Edinburgh University
1914-15 Member, Friends Ambulance Unit
1917 BA Cantab. St. John's College
1919-21 Doctoral studies, Columbia University
1920 Married Dorothy Dickinson
1921-32 Professor of Geology at Yenching, Peking, and Peiyang Universities. Primary research on Kailan Coalfields, Tsinan and Shuntehfuh areas; works with Amadeus Grabau
1922 Prepared members of the American Museum of Natural History third Asiatic Expedition
1923-4 Fieldwork on Kalgan area
1924 First fieldwork with de Chardin, Snagkanko valley
1928-9 Lecturer, Columbia University
1929 PhD, Columbia University, based on Kalgan research
1929-31 Fieldwork in Shansi and Shensi on Pliocene and Pleistocene History of the Yellow River Basin
1931 Special Visiting Fellow, California Institute of Technology
1933-4 Editorial Office, Geological Society of America
1934 Visiting Physiographer, Cenozoic Laboratory, Geological Society of China. Works with Davidson Black and funded by Rockefeller Foundation
1935 Acting Professor Stanford University
1937 Delivered the Gill Memorial Lecture, Royal Geographical Society, London
1938-58 Professor of Geology and Dean, McMicken College of Arts and Sciences, University of Cincinnati
1938 Elected Honorary member, Royal Geographical Society of Belgium
1939 Elected member of Association of American Geographers
1947 Geomorphologist, South African Expedition, University of California. Made Corresponding Member of Royal Geographical Society of Belgium. Elected Honorary member of Sigma Xi
1949 Elected President, Ohio Academy of Science; elected to Royal Society of South Africa and Geological Society of America
1977 Died 12 July; remains cremated and buried in Edinburgh
Roger Mark Selya is Professor of Geography at the University of Cincinnati