Carl Sauer, Field Exploration, and the Development of American Geographic Thought

Southeastern GeographerVol. XXXVI, No. 2, November 1996, pp. 176-191

CARL SAUER, FIELD EXPLORATION, AND THE DEVELOPMENTOF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHIC THOUGHT

Dawn S. Bowen

Carl Sauer has received a great deal of attention by those geographers who respect andadmire him as one of the great contributors to modern American geography, and by ayounger generation who believe that too much emphasis on Sauer and his form of culturalgeography has restricted the growth and development of this particular subfield. Ratherthan focusing on this dichotomy, or debating the relative merits of each side, it is moreimportant to explore the ways in which Sauer developed as a geographer. From such ananalysis perhaps meaningful lessons can be derived about where we have been as a disciplineand how we may proceed in the future.

Carl Ortwin Sauer (1889-1975) is recognized as one of the most influentialfigures in American geography. He is probably best known for his contributionsto our knowledge of the Middle West, for his work in Latin America (primarilyMexico), and for his disdain for methodological debate and the restrictions hebelieved it imposed on geographic inquiry. Sauer' s career coincided with a periodin American academic geography when new ideas, definitions, and approaches tothe study of geography were being introduced and debated. During his lifetime,the Association of American Geographers was founded, Ellsworth Huntingtonand Ellen Churchill Semple emerged as the principal proponents ofenvironmentaldeterminism, the military demands of World War II led to the creation of newtechniques in applied geography, and, much later, the discipline experienced a"quantitative revolution." Scholars concerned with the evolution of geographicthought have paid a great deal of attention to Sauer's philosophies and approachesto the discipline (Williams, 1983; Entrikin, 1984; Kenzer, 1987). In 1987, MarvinMikesell (1987, p. 149), a former student of Sauer, challenged prevailing thoughtby arguing that "too much attention is being paid to Sauer's 'speeches' and'editorials' and not enough to his substantive works," and further that "thepersistent attempt to find derivative qualities in his students is inhibiting appre-ciation of their accomplishments." Mikesell concluded that more emphasis mustbe given to the "energy and vision displayed" in his earlier works.This paper analyzes Sauer's substantive contributions, his writings on meth-

odology, as well as his correspondence, the latter drawn from secondary sources.Together, these writings provide a more well-rounded portrait of the man and histhought than is available in much of the literature about him. The paper arguesthat focusing on a particular methodological statement or the content of certain

Ms. Bowen is Lecturer in Geography at Mary Washington College,Fredricksburg, VA 22401-5358.

Vol. XXXVI, No. 2 177

substantive works fails to illuminate the process of Sauer's development as ageographer. It is more meaningful to examine the many ways in which Sauerworked as a geographer and to explore the reasons for his rejection of severalcommonly held geographic principles and his proposal of alternative viewpoints.In this day when a great deal of attention is being given to post-modernism, anddevotion to one or another social theory is widespread, there is much to be learnedfrom Carl Sauer. His rejection of fads and trends, and his commitment to field-and archival-based research, are important factors that seem to have been over-looked as geographers in the 1990s increasingly direct their research to theoreticalconstructs.

A GRADUAL AWAKENING. Sauer had become interested in the earth sciencesduring his undergraduate studies at Central Wesleyan College, and in 1908 he leftMissouri to pursue graduate studies in geology at Northwestern University (Kenzer,1985, pp. 1-2). He quickly became disillusioned with his courses in geologybecause they lacked a human dimension, and, after a year at Northwestern, hetransferred to the University of Chicago, the only university with a geographydepartment then offering the Ph.D. The department at Chicago had been estab-lished by Rollin Salisbury, a physiographer, and was therefore firmly rooted inboth geography and geology. Sauer's courses included both physiography andhistorical geology, and at least one seminar in human geography (Leighly, 1 976,pp. 337-338). The field of geography in the United States then was in its infancy,and Sauer later commented on this early period:

We went out to learn what we could with a fair background oflandforms and a liking of the landscape. We were expected to gainunderstanding by observing the relation ofman to physical environ-ment. We knew nothing of Ratzel's travels in United States duringwhich he became a geographer and returned home to write itsKulturgeographie .... Cultural geography was an unknown concept,but to some extent we did what he did, stop wherever we foundsomething to engage our attention as significant by being there. Bysuch reconnaissance we tried to describe the geographic pattern ofhuman activity and interpret its meaningful assemblage, andbegan to ask how the things seen came to be together. (Sauer, 1974,p. 190).

This statement was written more than 50 years after Sauer's graduate studies, andmay reflect the benefit of hindsight. It does demonstrate, however, a concern thatpeople be given a place in the landscape. His particular modes of inquiry wereperhaps not yet well developed, but his desire to ask questions about the geo-graphic implications of human activities already was evident.

178Southeastern Geographer

In 1910, Salisbury sent Sauer into the field to prepare a regional study of theupper Illinois Valley. This work, subsequently published in 1916 by the IllinoisState Geological Survey, places a strong emphasis on geology and physiography.This approach is confirmed in the introduction, where Sauer wrote that the reportwas intended for those " who may wish to read the story that is written in the rocksand soils of their home" (Sauer, 1916, p. 1 1). Although the book certainly had aphysical focus, Sauer did include a final chapter on settlement and development,which provided a superficial and rather crude treatment of the region's inhabi-tants. In contrast to views he came to hold in later years, Sauer declared the Indianto be a " savage" who did little to develop the region, but he conceded that theIndian was "worthy of attention because of the interest that was attached to himin local legends and in pioneer history" (Sauer, 1916, p. 144). The emphasis inthis chapter was clearly on economic development, with transportation, particu-larly the building of canals and railroads, receiving the bulk of Sauer's attentionconcerning the human imprint on the landscape.At the time of Sauer's investigation, environmental determinism had consid-

erable hold on the minds of American intellectuals, and certain deterministicelements appear in Sauer's early work. Ellen Churchill Semple lectured at Chicagoduring Sauer's years as a student. Sauer remembered her lectures, in which sheargued that history was shaped by "environmental advantage or denial," as"eloquent and evocative" (Sauer, 1974, p. 190). The young scholar was notentirely convinced of the validity of her approach, but he did agree that in theupper Illinois River Valley "physical processes . . . also affect man at every turnand are bound up in many ways with his welfare. They are recognized most readilyand are ofmost immediate importance in the geographic environment which theyhave created for him" (Sauer, 1916, p. 144). Such statements may not only reflectthe influence of Semple, but also of Harlan Barrows (another environmentaldeterminist at Chicago), who recommended that Sauer's final "human" chapterbe included and who advised Sauer on much of that chapter's content (Sauer,1916).In the fall of 1914, and again in the summer of 1915, Sauer engaged in

fieldwork for his doctoral dissertation on the Ozarks of his native Missouri. Thisdissertation on regional geography was directed by Salisbury, and not surprisinglya concern for the physical environment is evident; however, human processes, towhich Sauer was now clearly drawn, were the focal point. Nearly one-third of thebook that evolved from this research was devoted to physical features, but " onlythose things which are pertinent to an understanding of the conditions under whichpeople live" were examined (Sauer, 1920, p. viii). Once again, Sauer followed anapproach that clearly reflected the influence of Barrows, who in later years arguedthat only those physical aspects that had an impact on "man" were important togeography (Dickinson, 1976, p. 317). The rest of the dissertation presented amoderate version of determinism, in which Sauer inquired " into the manner and


extent of geographic influences in the past development and present utilization ofthe region by man" (Sauer, 1920, p. 7).Upon completion of his doctorate in 1915, Sauer accepted a position with the

University of Michigan. During the eight years he spent at Michigan, Sauerbecame involved with two projects that would have a lasting impact on hisgeographic thinking. The first was his establishment of a field camp in southernKentucky, where students were given opportunities to survey and map in aphysical environment decidedly different from that ofMichigan. Because publish-ed maps of the area were not available, Sauer and his students devoted much oftheir time to constructing maps of physical features. They also collected oralhistories from local residents and prepared reports on economic conditions insample areas. These field seasons in Kentucky helped Sauer refine the observa-tional skills he had begun to develop at Chicago, and exposed him to the humandimension of landscape that would play a prominent role in his later writings.The second project took Sauer to northern Michigan as part of the state's Land

Economic Survey. Here, in cutover country near the Straits of Mackinac, he sawthe destructive effects of logging and concluded that the land was unsuited tofarming, despite claims to the contrary. Detailed land-use maps prepared under hissupervision revealed the extent of human impact on this fragile environment, andconvinced Sauer that destructive land use was an important issue that needed tobe addressed more fully. This survey was one of the first steps toward a scientificsystem of land classification which Sauer outlined in an article in the Annals(Sauer, 1921). He recognized that before an area could be developed, it wasessential to know its potential usage. Too much energy had been wasted on theunintelligent exploitation of low-quality lands, and it was necessary to avoid themistakes of the past. The survey led to an increased emphasis on land managementplanning, and recognition that geographers could make significant contributionsin this area (Leighly, 1976, pp. 338-339).

THE BERKELEY YEARS. A significant shift in Sauer's thought can be traced to1923, when he accepted an offer from the University of California and moved toBerkeley. The reasons behind the move are important because they suggest hisframe ofmind at this time. Sauer explained that he wanted " to get away from whatgeographers were mainly doing in the East, which interested me less and less asnarrowing professionalism" (Sauer, 1974, p. 191). A second motivation may havebeen his dissatisfaction with the Land Economic Survey. Fred Kniffen recalledthat Sauer wanted to avoid being tied to the survey for a lengthy period of time.Sauer's interests, Kniffen asserted, were far too wide-ranging for this sort ofdrudgery, and were "perhaps less utilitarian than the land economic surveys"demanded (Kniffen, 1979, p. 63).The first reason is particularly illuminating because it demonstrates Sauer's

general attitude toward the discipline. He had become disillusioned with American


academic geography and felt that squabbling about its future directions wasunproductive. In a letter written in the 1940s, Sauer recalled "those dreadfulseminars ... in which there was no curiosity about what a man found, onlydiscussion of relevance to a particular definition of geography" (Leighly, 1 976,p. 338). He saw that in California he could make a fresh start and give fullerattention to the ideas he had begun to formulate while in the Midwest. It wasimperative that geographers get out in the field and observe the real world. AtBerkeley, he would be far removed from meaningless debates about the definitionof geography and could venture in new directions, pursuing questions that oc-curred to him as he observed the landscape.In 1924, Sauer published "The Survey Method in Geography," a study based

largely on his previous experiences in Kentucky and Michigan. After more than adecade of field research, Sauer believed that he was in a position to rejectenvironmental determinism:

A well-founded objection to much geographic study is based on thefact that the geographer has taken the affirmative side in a debate onenvironment and has therefore failed to maintain the objectivequality of a scientist .... A science can hardly be committed inadvance to a particular theory, but must rest rather on a distinctivefield of inquiry that is independent of the affirmation or negation oftheories. The bias of environmentalism has resulted for numerousworkers in geography in premature generalizations which have beenwrongly considered to represent the content of the subject . . .(Sauer, 1924, p. 18).

Sauer's objection to environmental determinism appears to be twofold. First, heasserted that the search for geographic influences in support of this notion was notscientific. There was no objectivity because the geographer was committed inadvance to a particular principle. Second, and more important, Sauer believed thatgeographic knowledge should be obtained from careful observations, and theninferences could be drawn from the accumulated data. Systematic surveys had tobe conducted to gain a full appreciation of the human impact on the landscape;only then could generalizations and suppositions be made.This article, in addition to an earlier piece written with Wellington Jones (Jones

and Sauer, 1915), laid a foundation for systematic fieldwork. In "Survey Method,"Sauer declared that the objective of field study should be to represent the "naturalor original condition of the area" and to demonstrate its "utilization and modifi-cation" by humans (Sauer, 1924, p. 21). Physical characteristics of the region thatplay a role in determining its human occupation must be recorded. Humanoccupation, however, was the most important concern for geographers. An areacould be characterized by its physical qualities, the people who live there, and the


time frame in which it was occupied. Careful field surveys, in which precise mapsof physical features, land use, and populations were drawn and detailed notestaken, would provide the data necessary to describe and differentiate regions.Sauer was able to suggest refutation of determinist precepts as a result of his

field experiences. He saw that humans could take control of and modify theirenvironment to suit their needs. Even his early studies in Illinois and Missouri,which contain some determinist language, are moderate when compared to thoseof other geographers of the time. His use of deterministic arguments is rarelyovert, and it is apparent that he never fully embraced the teachings of his profes-sors at Chicago. Although Sauer did not immediately offer an alternative in thesewritings, Robert Piatt (1959, pp. 140-141) has suggested that by 1930 Sauer haddeveloped " an ample and suitable replacement" for determinism with an " anthro-pological concept of cultural process" that he introduced (Sauer and Brand, 1930)in "Pueblo Sites of Southeastern Arizona." This concept implied that localinvention and persistence, and the transmission of cultural traits, were causalprocesses through which societies adapted to particular environments. It was anidea that sought to replace the direct cause-and-effect relationship between peopleand the environment which other geographers had been promoting.Shortly after his arrival in Berkeley, Sauer began a search for topics to

investigate. In 1 926, in the company of three graduate students, he took his firsttrip into Mexico. The group drove south into Baja California, where they exam-ined geologic and physiographic features, but also observed human impacts on thelandscape. Although Sauer would write a few more articles in geomorphologyafter this trip, he was now inclined to give people a preeminent role in thedevelopment of landscape. This initial trip was largely a reconnaissance of thearea, but the site of a Jesuit mission at San Fernando in the northern Baja caughtSauer's interest, and the group spent a great deal of time at this location. A paperprepared by Sauer and Peveril Meigs, one of his students, focused on the SanFernando mission, which they argued was a " link in the major cultural succes-sion" evident in the region (Sauer and Meigs, 1927). They examined the role ofthe mission in this process and emphasized how the region was affected by thepresence of the mission. The study, Sauer's first in the historical geography ofLatin America, utilized field surveys, some oral histories, and archival documen-tation to show how the intrusion of Spanish missionaries had altered the physicaland cultural landscape.Sauer's interest in Spanish missions took him into the field again in the

summer of 1928. This time he spent seven weeks traveling through the state ofSonora in northern Mexico. Robert West, another one of Sauer's students andauthor of a book detailing Sauer's fieldwork in Latin America, postulated that areading of mission history would naturally have led Sauer to this area, wheremissions had been located in the 17th and 18th centuries (West, 1979). Sauer thusset out in search of mission sites, but what he actually found intrigued him more.


It is likely that this field season, when he encountered a number of archeologicalsites, further sparked his enthusiasm for prehistory. He wrote: "Pueblo ruins andartifacts were encountered so frequently that we had to reckon with an occupationof that country prior, and perhaps unrelated, to the historic Indian cultures of thearea" (Sauer and Brand, 1930, p. 415).Sauer received a sabbatical in the spring of 1930 and spent the time in

northwestern Mexico (West, 1979). One of the main objectives of his field workwas to explore the possibility of a "prehistoric corridor between the Mexicanhighland and the Pueblo country of the American Southwest," a passage that heand Brand had postulated in the Pueblo study (Sauer and Brand, 1932, p. 1).Despite the absence of any physical barriers between the two culture regions,Sauer was unable to confirm this connection. The investigation did, however,reveal "vestiges of a high native culture" that had previously been unknown. Theresulting study was termed a "reconnaissance," because the material encounteredwas new and archeological classification was needed before any spatial implica-tions could be hypothesized. Yet the work had three-fold significance: (1) itdescribed in some detail this newly discovered Indian culture; (2) it providedSauer with evidence to oppose "the prevailing view of how American agriculturestarted"; and (3) it established Sauer as a leading authority on Latin America(Sauer and Brand, 1932; West, 1979).An important concept that emerged from Sauer's early work in Mexico and the

American Southwest was archeogeography, a term coined by Sauer himself(West, 1979, p. 16). The evidence found at archeological sites provided clues to"some of the earliest and most significant scenes of human occupation . . .involving an important cultural succession, a careful selection of site, and itsskilful [sic] and intensive utilization" (Sauer and Brand, 1930, p. 415). It wasclear to Sauer that these prehistoric peoples were worthy of study, and theprincipal means by which this could be accomplished was through investigationof archeological sites. Unlike archeologists who tended to explore only one site ata time, Sauer endeavored to compare the findings at each site and to understandthe spatial implications. The archeologist A. V. Kidder wrote to Sauer in 1 932 thathe wished "more of our archeologists and geographers held the point of viewwhich it implies" (West, 1979, p. 16).The methodology that Sauer developed in his Mexican studies offered a new

approach to the enumeration ofprehistoric Indian populations. In particular, theseworks cast considerable doubt on the population figures then accepted by anthro-pologists. Evidence of Sauer's interest in historical demography is found in theSan Fernando study, and later in "Aztatlan," when Sauer examined documentaryevidence to produce estimates of aboriginal populations. Sauer's most significantcontribution was the " Aboriginal Population of Northwestern Mexico," a studyin which he made important methodological advances. Recognizing that hispopulation estimates disagreed with those of anthropologists, Sauer provided a


detailed description of sources and how they were utilized. He claimed that earlydocumentary evidence from missionary records and Spanish administrators hadbeen viewed with skepticism by many scholars, but that he himself had no reasonto suspect that the figures were exaggerated (Sauer, 1935, p. 1). From thesefigures, he was able to extrapolate total population numbers. Sauer recognized thepotential hazards of" filling in the blank spaces," but believed that it was a greaterfallacy to regard the fragmentary figures as totals, as many scholars had pre-viously done. Finally, Sauer claimed that his own familiarity with the region, andits current economic and social conditions, provided further support for hispopulation estimates because the region had changed so little since the time ofcontact (Sauer, 1935, pp. 3-4).Sauer's reflections on early human society were based on his many years of

observation in Latin America, and, to a large degree, on the research of anthro-pologists and archeologists. His essays on the use of fire, the seashore as the earlyhome of man, and woman as the keeper of the hearth are regarded as speculativeby some scholars, but are nonetheless insightful explorations into cultural origins(Beals, 1965, p. 205). Many of these articles were poorly referenced, and thus itis difficult to determine which interpretations were his own and which he hadborrowed, but it is clear that his ideas on the origins of mankind were firmlyrooted in physical geography and that he gave considerable attention to physiog-raphy, climate, and geology as the parameters within which early societies devel-oped. Sauer was particularly intrigued by the role of women and argued againstthe idea that human societies began as a group controlled by a dominant male.Instead, he supported the view that the "mother founded the family and directedit" (Sauer, 1981, p. 108). This line of thinking was expanded upon in an articleentitled "Sedentary and Mobile Bents in Early Societies," which became "animportant essay for feminist scholars" (Callahan, 1981, p. xiii). Although therewas little physical evidence to support this hypothesis, it is an articulate andlogically argued rebuttal to the dominant male thesis. Such logic and insight arehallmarks of many of Sauer's writings on cultural origins.

METHODOLOGICAL DEBATES. Sauer's development of archeogeography, hisreflections on historical demography, and his interests in plant domestication andpaleogeography represented radically different approaches to geography and wereonly tangentially related to the concerns of other American geographers. In fact,Anne Macpherson in her discussion of Sauer's early years at Berkeley has arguedthat " his work was out of the mainstream, indeed out of favor with most estab-lished geographers . . ." (Macpherson, 1987, p. 83). John Leighly (1979, p. 9), along-time colleague of Sauer's, has maintained, however, that Sauer actually hadso little respect for American geographers that he paid scant attention to theiropinions. The seemingly endless disciplinary debate that was taking place amonggeographers was of no interest to Sauer, who was far too busy searching for


answers to his many questions. Nevertheless, his position on the periphery did notprevent him from trying to inform fellow geographers about his work and hisviews of the discipline. Despite an aversion for philosophical discourse, Sauerwas drawn into the debate.

Scholars have written at length about Sauer's philosophy and methodologybased in large part on his methodological pronouncements; but, in truth, he hadlittle interest in such endeavors and clearly did not regard them as substantivecontributions. In 1946, he remarked that his methodological papers were only

progress reports of my interests as a scholar concerned with inves-tigation. I neither read such papers myself, nor do I refer my studentsto them after the bloom is off them. They are best considered assuccessive orientations and have had utility as such; they belong tothe history of geography, and if they are any good, they representchange and growth (Sauer, quoted in Williams, 1983, p. 2).

The last sentence is particularly important because these writings are indeed usefulfor providing insights into the public man and his thoughts about geography.Sauer made three forays into methodological debate. The first, " Morphology

ofLandscape," written in 1925, was an attempt to define geography by employingthe concepts of landscape and morphology. Landscape, he proposed, was the "unitconcept of geography," and was thus synonymous with the terms " region" and"area." Morphology implied that landscapes could be characterized by form ortype. Students eager to draw conclusions from their studies would be disappointedbecause the morphologic method did not seek to prove hypotheses. Rather, Sauerargued, since the method was "objective and value-free," it could lead to signifi-cant new discoveries (Sauer, 1963, p. 327)."Morphology" was clearly written in response to the approaches Sauer had

encountered at Chicago, and reflected his desire to introduce American geogra-phers to the ideas of their colleagues in Europe. The essay was Sauer's attempt tooutline the objectives of the discipline in light of his rejection of environmentaldeterminism. Geography, he suggested, was concerned with the study of areas; thepurpose was not to describe them as unique entities, but rather was to identifycommonalties that could lead to generalizations. The focus of Sauer's interest wasthe cultural landscape, which, he declared, was " fashioned from a natural land-scape" through human action. Cultural landscapes were not static conceptions, hesaid, but actually experienced change, just as the societies which created them hadchanged. Sauer pointed out that the physical environment was of fundamentalimportance because it provided the material from which the cultural landscapewas formed, although humans ultimately determined how these resources wouldbe utilized. Once again, Sauer rejected environmental determinism, and declaredinstead that the environment offered a wide range of possibilities from which


people could choose. This article and the " Survey Method," published one yearbefore, were clear signals to geographers that deterministic approaches should nolonger be tolerated.The response from geographers was perhaps predictable. The younger genera-

tion praised the work; older scholars had little use for it. Robert Dickinson wrotethat the essay served as his " springboard" into the discipline, and Preston Jamesdeclared that it provided the " coherence" to guide geography in the future (Martin,1987, p. xii). In contrast, Charles R. Dryer (1926, p. 349), in a review, challenged themethodology of going into the field without a working hypothesis and remarked," If [the geographer] does, the result is likely to be a catalogue half rubbish . . .and wholly unscientific." Sauer was bewildered by the attention "Morphology"received and felt that geographers spent far too much time on it—more, in fact,than he had spent writing it. In later years, he declared that he had

no interest at all in writing on nature and objectives of the field ofgeography as such. Once upon a time I had to do that sort of thing,principally to think my way through to something by which I couldwork. God helping, I shall never write anything more in methodol-ogy; it's a habit-forming drug (Sauer, quoted in Williams, 1983,p. 7).

As President of the Association of American Geographers, Sauer nonethelesschose to return to reflections on methodology for his 1 940 address. He would havepreferred to present data and conclusions from his Mexican work, but insteadopted to discuss the "confession of the faith that has stood behind [his] work"(Sauer, 1941, p. 1). In truth, as he confided to a correspondent, he realized that hiswork in Mexico would leave many people wondering why " a geographer did thatsort ofthing" (Sauer, quoted in Williams, 1983, p. 10). The essay, "Foreword toHistorical Geography," is one of the most articulate statements Sauer made abouthis own geographical agenda. The discipline, he argued, was curiously uninter-ested in historical processes and sequences; as a result, it failed to foster insightsinto the current geographical scene. Those who ignored history, he wrote, failedto recognize that human geography and history were not really different subjectsbut simply " different approaches to the same problem, the problem of culturalgrowth and change" (Sauer, 1941, p. 5).A final major published statement ofhis views about the discipline came in the

spring of 1956 when, as honorary president of the Association of AmericanGeographers, Sauer gave an address entitled "The Education of a Geographer."Like "Foreword to Historical Geography,"" it is largely an autobiographicalaccount. He admonished his listeners to recognize that the field of geography wasof "necessity wider than what we, the professors of geography, work at." In a


section appropriately entitled " On Being Unspecialized," he warned that narrowdefinitions of the field would only serve to limit geographers' awareness of theworld around them. The individual geographer must "gain whatever he can ofspecial insights and skills in whatever most absorbs his attention" (Sauer, 1956,p. 293). In the address, Sauer also declared that field exploration was fundamentalto the geographer's development:

The principal training of the geographer should come, wheneverpossible, by doing field work .... The class of forms, be they ofland, vegetation, or culture, is optional; the important thing is toget this awareness of form started up, to recognize kind and vari-ation, position and extent, presence and absence, function and deri-vation . . . (Sauer, 1956, p. 296).

The view expressed here is similar to that enunciated in "Morphology ofLandscape" 30 years earlier. It reflects his belief that a geographer must not golooking for evidence to support theory, but rather that observation in the fieldshould provide the facts from which theories might be developed. Thus theorymight evolve from field investigations, but a geographer should not be constrainedby theory nor consider its advancement as the goal of field work. This statementundoubtedly epitomized Sauer's attitude toward field study. He was comfortablein the field and always uncovered new problems that required further investiga-tion. Sauer first conducted field research in the summer of 1910. Reminiscingabout this early experience years later, he recalled that he alone was left to" determine manner and range of what [he] did in the field," and that his " firstuntutored field season opened inquiries that have continued ever after" (Sauer,1974, p. 190). The particular questions posed were not significant, he said; it wassimply enough that a geographer was inspired to raise a variety of questions.Sauer often expressed concern about those geographers who wished to estab-

lish tight parameters for the discipline. He was not limited by any particulardefinition of geography or by what others thought geographers should do. Asearly as 1932, his disillusionment with academic geography was evident:

I am at a loss to understand this pernicious anemia that has seizedupon some geographers, expressed in a weary shaking of the headat the sight of a fellow student happily productive and in themonotonous, sepulchral query: "But is it geography?" Imaginegeologists saying about their work: "The work is good but is itgeology?" or of economists forever saying to themselves: "Wemust not look into this matter, for it might turn out to be history orpolitical science!" Barbed wire fences may be necessary in elemen-tary curricula, but the pursuit of knowledge cannot afford to frustrate


itself by building fences about narrow plots of learning (Sauer,1932, pp. 527-528).

In his attempt to understand evolution—of humanity, agriculture, or landscape—he would use whatever methods that would provide insight, including archeologi-cal, anthropological, and biological concepts. For Sauer, there was simply toomuch knowledge to be gained, and being restricted to a narrow view of one's owndiscipline would not help scholars—geographers in particular, find answers to theirquestions.An exchange of letters between Sauer and Richard Hartshorne, author of The

Nature of Geography, provides an excellent illustration of Sauer's attitudestoward geography and the futility of methodological debate (quoted in Williams,1983, pp. 15-17). Sauer regarded Hartshorne's treatise on the development ofgeographic thought as "pedantry," and had little use for it. Hartshorne, on theother hand, did not take kindly to Sauer's opinions and at a geographers' meetingdeclared that "it was time for them to question this great god west of the Sierras"(Martin, 1994, p. 484). He then took Sauer to task for his role in the discipline'smethodological debate, which, Hartshorne argued, began with Sauer's definitionof geography outlined in "Morphology." Although Sauer himself may haveattached little importance to his own methodological pronouncements, Hartshornewarned that other geographers were perhaps not so open minded. In a letter toSauer, he wrote:

I fear that those of us who publish methodological studies aresomewhat naive in supposing that other students will not take themas pronouncements .... I am sure you have no idea of the extent towhich your earlier papers ... were used as the foundation of attackon papers as not being geography .... [Pjublishing methodologicalpapers is a dangerous business; one may start a chain of thought andaction over which one no longer has any control, but in which hiswritings form a responsible factor (Hartshorne, quoted in Williams,1983, pp. 15-16).

Sauer was appalled that his statements were regarded in this manner. In ahastily written reply, Sauer wrote:

Is it my fault that geographers east of the Sierras apparently readonly "methodological" papers, and read apparently only the meth-odological framework in those?. . .

What geographers need is, I think, more curiosity, not sharper logic.Is a person contributing something new and significant? Geography

Southeastern Geographer

is what geographers have worked at successfully in the enlargementof knowledge. Our students [at Berkeley] are not made to wadethrough your volume, though they know it, nor through any meth-odological papers .... We have not time and less inclination toreconcile the letters of the apostles with each other. I am not writingthis in smugness but in heaviness of heart that geographers shoulduse so much energy in beating methodology around the epistemo-logica! stump instead of tilling whatever fields they have for pro-duction. I'd like to see youngsters get their teeth into real problemsand not waste the years finding their way as I had to do . . . (Sauer,quoted in Williams, 1983, pp. 16-17).

This message is as timely today as it was 50 years ago when it was written.Methodology, the way in which a study was conducted, was important to Sauer, butdebates about which methodology was the best were trivial. Sauer did not regardhis own statements in this manner, nor did he intend for other geographers to usethem as such. They were instead personal attempts to establish frameworks forsolving particular problems; these were Sauer's suggestions, not rigid definitions.

THE LEGACY. In 1943, Sauer wrote that he "did try to contribute something tothe growth of knowledge and [met] with virtually nothing but lack of interest anddisdain on the part of American geographers" (Sauer, quoted in Martin, 1987,p. xiv). The situation today is dramatically reversed. Scholars have expendedconsiderable energy analyzing Sauer's work, and "Sauerology" (to borrowMarvin Mikesell's term) has attracted a great many followers. As long as restraintis exercised, and efforts are not made to attribute more philosophy to Sauer thanhe actually intended, valuable insights can be gained from an examination of hispublished writings. There are lessons here for geographers, both young and old,and they are lessons which should be heeded if the discipline is to survive.One of Sauer's most important contribution to geography was the importance

he attached to fieldwork. All geographers, he wrote, were "travelers, vicariouswhen they must be, actual when they may .... When vacation-bound they may ...seek out byways and unnoted places where they gain the feeling of personaldiscovery. They enjoy striking out on foot, away from roads . . . ." This was a traitshared by all geographers, even, Sauer added, by urban geographers who "mayhave in [them] the need to climb unpopulated mountains" (Sauer, 1956, p. 289).He was willing to go out, muddy his boots as it were, and learn whatever he couldfrom the landscape. He wanted to see for himself how physical and human actionsshaped patterns on the land. These explorations led him to raise questions abouthow these processes evolved, and to seek explanations for what he saw. Asgeography has become more preoccupied with quantification, there is a need torefocus attention on fieldwork. Like " armchair" geographers, model-builders too


often fail to see the real world that exists beyond their numbers. Sauer recognizedthat systematic field study was an essential component of all geographic inquiry;it is a realization that geographers today must not ignore.At a time when a great deal of thought is being devoted to questions about

social theory and its applicability to geography, Sauer's opinions on methodologi-cal debate provide considerable insight. Although Sauer did occasionally offer hisviews on the subject, he was far more interested in doing geography than debatingwhat geography was or how it should be approached. While the debates continue,it is refreshing to read these words of Sauer: "I'm scared of people who makemethodology the principal means by which they express their thinking .... I amnot pleased by any geographers who try to introduce—to impose—a particularway ofworking" (Parsons, 1987, p. 154). This statement is contradictory becausethere is clearly a difference between introducing and imposing. Sauer recognizedthat all geographers needed to develop a particular method, or in some cases,various methods, but no geographer had the right to tell others which approachwas best. This belief is reflected in Sauer's own work, for which he developed hisown approaches, borrowed some from others, and was not adverse to rejectingthose which offered no insights.John Leighly (1976, p. 344) has written that Sauer was able to "transcend the

narrow teaching he received at Chicago and the equally narrow practices of hiscontemporaries in American academic geography." By 1924 his field experienceshad taught him that human beings clearly determined their own relationship withthe environment, and thus he was able to reject the doctrine of environmentaldeterminism. After his arrival at Berkeley, Sauer's interest in the human dimen-sions of landscape intensified and his explorations in the field led him to investi-gate the "farthest reaches of human time." This interest, which led him intoarcheogeography, paleogeography, historical demography, and plant domestica-tion, placed him at odds with mainstream geographers, but he was not concernedabout this (although he was perhaps hurt that they did not understand). He neverstopped to ask himself if what he was doing was geography, nor did it matter tohim if others thought it was not. This point is of fundamental importance. Sauerdid not allow himself to be hemmed in by the narrow perceptions of his fellowgeographers. He was intelligent, independent, and, above all, inquisitive. Hewanted to discover the truth, or at least raise questions that would lead in thatdirection, whether it required using the techniques of the geographer, historian,anthropologist, or botanist. Is it unreasonable to expect geographers today toadopt a similar philosophy?

NOTE

'The author wishes to thank Anne Godlewska and George Loveil (Queen's University) fortheir insightful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and three anonymousreviewers for their clarifications and suggestions.


LITERATURE CITED

Beals, R. L. 1965. "Review ?? Land And Life: A Selection from the Writings of CarlOrtwin Sauer, edited by John Leighly," in American Anthropologist N. S., Vol. 67,pp. 205-206.Callahan, B. 1981. "Introduction," in Selected Essays 1963 - 1975, by Carl O. Sauer(Berkeley, CA: Turtle Island Foundation).

Dickinson, R. E. 197'6. Regional Concept: The Anglo-American Leaders (London: Rout-ledge & Kegan Paul).

Dryer, C. R. 1926. "Review of 'The Morphology of Landscape,' by Carl O. Sauer,"Geographical Review, Vol. 16, pp. 348-350.

Entrikin, J. N. 1984. "Carl O. Sauer, Philosopher in Spite of Himself," GeographicalReview, Vol. 74, pp. 387-408.Jones, W. D., and Sauer, C. O. 1915. "Outline for Field Work in Geography," Bulletin ofthe American Geographical Society, Vol. 47, pp. 520-525.

Kenzer, M. S. 1985. "Carl O. Sauer: Nascent Human Geographer at Northwestern,"California Geographer, Vol. 25, pp. 1-11.

Kenzer, M. S., ed. 1987. Carl O. Sauer: A Tribute (Corvallis: Oregon State UniversityPress).

Kniffen, F. B. 1979. "Why Folk Housing?" Annals of the Association of AmericanGeographers, Vol. 69, pp. 59-63.

Leighly, J. 1976. "Carl Ortwin Sauer, 1889-1975," Annals ofthe Association ofAmericanGeographers, Vol. 66, pp. 337-348.

Leighly, J. 1979. "Drifting into Geography in the Twenties," Annals ofthe Association ofAmerican Geographers, Vol. 69, pp. 4-15.Macpherson, A. 1987. "Preparing for the National Stage: Carl Sauer's First Ten Years atBerkeley," in Martin S. Kenzer ed., Carl O. Sauer: A Tribute (Corvallis, OR: OregonState University Press).

Martin, G. J. 1987. "Foreword," in Martin S. Kenzer, ed., Carl O. Sauer: A Tribute(Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press).

Martin, G. J. 1994. "Richard Hartshorne, 1899-1992," Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, Vol. 84, pp. 480-492.Mikesell, M. W. 1987. "Sauer and 'Sauerology': A Student's Perspective," in MartinS. Kenzer, ed., Carl O. Sauer: A Tribute (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State UniversityPress).

Parsons, J. J. 1987. " 'Now This Matter of Cultural Geography': Notes from Carl Sauer'sLast Seminar at Berkeley," in Martin S. Kenzer, ed., Carl O. Sauer: A Tribute (Corval-lis, OR: Oregon State University Press).

Piatt, R. S. 1959. Field Study in American Geography. Department ofGeography, Univer-sity of Chicago, Chicago: Research Paper No. 61.

Sauer, CO. 1916. Geography ofthe Upper Illinois Valley (Urbana, IL: State GeologicalSurvey).

Sauer, C. O. 1920. The Geography ofthe Ozark Highland ofMissouri (Chicago, IL: TheUniversity of Chicago Press).Sauer, C. O. 1921. "The Problem of Land Classification," Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, Vol. 1 1, pp. 3-16.Sauer, C. O. 1924. "The Survey Method in Geography and Its Objectives," Annals of theAssociation ofAmerican Geographers, Vol. 14, pp. 17-33.Sauer, C. O. 1932. "Letter to the Editor," Geographical Review, Vol. 22, pp. 527-528.


Sauer, C. O. 1935. "Aboriginal Population of Northwestern Mexico," Ibero-Americana,Vol. 10, pp. 1-33.Sauer, C. O. 1941. "Foreword to Historical Geography," Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, Vol. 31, pp. 1-24.Sauer, C. O. 1956. "The Education of a Geographer," Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, Vol. 46, pp. 287-299.Sauer, C. O. 1963. "The Morphology of Landscape," in John Leighly, ca., Land and Life:A Selection from the Writings of Carl Ortwin Sauer (Berkeley, CA: University ofCalifornia Press).

Sauer, C. O. 1974. "The Fourth Dimension of Geography," Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, Vol. 64, pp. 189-192.Sauer, C. O. 1981. Selected Essays 1963 - 1975, Bob Callahan, ed. (Berkeley, CA: TurtleIsland Foundation).

Sauer, C. O., and Brand, D. 1930. "Pueblo Sites in Southeastern Arizona," University ofCalifornia Publications in Geography, Vol. 3, pp. 415-458.

Sauer, C. O., and Brand, D. 1932. "Aztatlan: Prehistoric Mexican Frontier on the PacificCoast," Ibero-Americana, VOl. l,pp. 1-93.

Sauer, C. O., and Meigs, P. 1927. "Site and Culture at San Fernando de Velicata,"University ofCalifornia Publications in Geography, Vol. 2, pp. 271-302.

West, R. C. 1979. Carl Sauer's Fieldwork in Latin America (Ann Arbor, MI: UniversityMicrofilms International).

Williams, M. 1983. "'The Apple of My Eye': Carl Sauer and Historical Geography,"Journal ofHistorical Geography, Vol. 9, pp. 1-28.

Carl Sauer, Field Exploration, and the Development of American Geographic Thought

Documents