Vol. 43, No. 1
Pennsylvania Geology
Table of
Contents
Editorial—
The Legacy of Arthur
Socolow
Page 2
The Role of Geology
and Terrain in the
Defeat of Stuart
East of Gettysburg,
July 3, 1863
Page 3
In Memoriam—
Arthur A. Socolow
Page 11
Bureau News
Page 17
Pennsylvania Geofact
Page 17
Staff Listing
Page 18
Looking west toward Gettysburg from the East Cavalry
Battlefield (see article on page 3). Confederate lines were
to the right and Union lines to the left. The monument in the
center marks where both forces clashed in the final charge.
— Photograph by John C. Neubaum
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
EDITORIAL
The Legacy of Arthur Socolow
George E. W. Love, State Geologist
Pennsylvania Geological Survey
An organization is known by many things—its mission
statement, people, reputation, and work products; the
community it serves; and the legacy of its leadership. I do not
believe that most organizations start out by thinking about
their legacy. Rather, I think they start out with a group of
people (or sometimes just one person) that sees a need and
wants to address it in some suitable fashion. Needs must be
evaluated, must be measured in some way, and must be
translated into achievable goals.
As has occurred all too frequently over the last two
years, I find myself writing about a member of our geologic
community who has passed from our ranks. This time, I am
reflecting upon a man whom I did not know personally, but who has left a remarkable imprint on the
science of geology and whose directives and standards remain as guiding principles—no, make that
achievable goals—for the Pennsylvania Geological Survey. One might fairly ask how I can say such
things about a stranger. Well, let me tell you: the legacy of his leadership speaks for itself.
Arthur Socolow, the 8th Pennsylvania State Geologist, is remembered in this volume. Numerous
details are presented in the article, which I highly recommend that you read. No matter what anyone
may say of the departed, be it good, bad, or indifferent, one’s legacy may be the most important aspect
of the individual. Many complimentary things are said about Art, well deserved, I suspect, but the
actions he took and the goals he established are the true measure of the man. His legacy includes,
among other things, the publication you are now reading. In 1969, Art established Pennsylvania
Geology as an instrument to “share with our fellow citizens the activities and services of the
Pennsylvania Geological Survey.” That tradition continues, not just the sharing but also the listening.
The Survey continues to be an informer to the public on practical aspects of geology and topography;
an investor of the public’s funds in activities that matter; a supporter of policies that guide
development, land use, recreation and education; and a forum for informed scientific discussion.
Styles of publications are important. Eye-catching colors, presentations, and displays are
important. If you do not capture the attention of the audience, you fail on many levels. Art was
instrumental in changing the color codes on Pennsylvania maps so that the information being portrayed
jumped off the page. What better way to grab your attention! The presentation of technical data in a
readily readable fashion is another legacy of the Socolow years. What better way to educate the public?
Art has not been physically here with us in the office for many years. Yet, his benevolent ghost
does linger, with its watchful eye and intellectual directive to “share with our fellow citizens.” And I
say, “Thank you, Dr. Socolow. Rest well knowing that your goals are our goals.”
Page 2 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
The Role of Geology and Terrain in the
Defeat of Stuart East of Gettysburg, July 3, 1863
John C. Neubaum
Pennsylvania Geological Survey
Introduction
More than 200 million years ago, rising magma intruding along bedding planes and joints formed
dikes and sills of diabase underground. The diabase structures were gradually exposed by erosion of
the less resistant surrounding sedimentary rock to form some of the most iconic terrain features in
American history: for example, Devils Den, Little Round Top, Culps Hill, and Seminary and Cemetery
Ridges. Here, from July 1 to July 3, 1863, occurred what is generally accepted as the turning point in
the American Civil War.
The Geology of the Area
The Army of the Potomac, commanded by Major General George Meade (given command after
Joseph Hooker was relieved on June 28) (Table 1), defended a so-called “fishhook” line along the
Gettysburg sill, running from Big Round Top in the south to Culps Hill in the north, with Cemetery
Ridge in between (Figure 1). This sill consisted of the voluminous York Haven Diabase that was
formed at the very beginning of the Jurassic Period, around 202 million years ago. Finely granular to
coarsely crystalline, this diabase contains a bit more titanium than the Rossville Diabase of Seminary
Ridge, along which the Confederates deployed their forces (Inners and others, 2006). Between these
ridges was somewhat flatter lowland consisting of red beds of the Upper Triassic Gettysburg Formation,
sedimentary rocks deposited around 203 to 222 million years ago: red shale, claystone, mudstone,
siltstone, and fine sandstone, with minor gray shale and mudstone (Inners and others, 2006; Smith and
Keen, 2004; Smoot, 1999; Stose and Bascom, 1929) (Figure 2). These soft red beds also occur on the
East Cavalry Battlefield, about 3 miles east of where the main battle was fought. This article is not
about the main battle, but rather it is about the cavalry duel that took place here on July 3, and how
geology and other factors influenced that battle. Although certainly a much smaller battle, similar to a
number of smaller skirmishes, it was still part of the Gettysburg campaign and deserves a look.
The Terrain
The terrain in the area of the East Cavalry Battlefield (see cover) was well suited to cavalry
action, being fairly open and flat and underlain by soft red beds of the lower part of the Gettysburg
Formation. Confederate cavalry commander J. E. B. Stuart observed this when he reconnoitered the
field on July 2, looking out from Cress Ridge, which had a long and fairly steep elevation and
meandered among three farms (Longacre, 1986, p. 222). As a proponent of “true cavalry” (basically a
massive head-on full-speed charge using only sabers in an effort to shock and crush the enemy), he felt
that here was ground where his cavalry might gain some advantage. It was certainly better than the
rockier, mostly boulder-strewn area where the two main armies clashed for three days (Kross, 1997,
p. 48–49).
The Plan
Let us consider what Stuart was trying to do. Confederate commander General Robert E. Lee had
not ordered but had suggested that Stuart advance against the Union rear to exploit a large attack
Page 3 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
Table 1. A Who’s Who at the Defeat of Stuart, July 3, 1863
Union Forces—Army of the Potomac
George Meade, Major General, Union commander
Joseph Hooker, Major General, previous Union commander
David Gregg, Brigadier General, Union cavalry
George Custer, Brigadier General, Union cavalry
John Buford, Brigadier General, Union cavalry
Charles Town, Colonel, Union cavalry
William Miller, Captain, Union cavalry
Confederate Forces—Army of Northern Virginia
Robert E. Lee, General, Confederate commander
Richard Ewell, Lieutenant General, Second Corps commander
J. E. B. Stuart, Major General, Confederate cavalry commander
Wade Hampton, Brigadier General, Confederate cavalry
Fitzhugh Lee, Brigadier General, Confederate cavalry
against the Union center, although no official records exist to support this plan. It is possible that Lee’s
intentions were for Stuart to simply create general chaos in the Union rear, cutting lines of
communication and supply. Stuart also had his personal reputation to regain, having lost some of it in
his ride around the Union Army (on June 25, Stuart had made a fateful decision to use, as he saw it, the
wide discretion that General Lee had given him and to move further east through the rear of the Union
Army rather than backtrack and screen the right flank of Lieutenant General Richard Ewell’s Second
Corps), making his services unavailable to Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia (ANV). This left
Stuart totally out of communication with the ANV for four days leading up to the battle and for most of
the first two days of the battle. Lee, ever gracious, commended the cavalry in his after-action report for
putting up the fight they did on July 3 after rejoining the army in a depleted state (Wittenberg, 2002,
p. 46–47).
It is worth mentioning that Stuart’s cavalry was indeed exhausted, and their horses were in a
deplorable condition, after eight straight days of hard riding and fighting, capping it off with a forced
35-mile trek from Carlisle, where they were when Stuart found out that a major battle was being fought
to the south at Gettysburg. Officers were so dumb with fatigue that they had to be shaken to get their
attention when handed orders. Men slept as best they could in the saddle as their faithful mounts kept
them on the trail. They and their horses needed days, if not weeks, of rest to be in fighting trim, but of
course that was impossible (Kross, 1997, p. 21–22).
The Confederates had an edge in overall numbers in this cavalry action, but in terms of the
number actually engaged, it was fairly even. The Union had about 3,250 and the Confederates about
5,000 troopers, although it is possible that only 3,430 of Stuart’s men saw action that day (Sears, 2003,
p. 459–460). Unfortunately for Stuart, there was vegetation that prevented him from observing the
location and strength of Union forces in the area as he approached the Union rear area. Stuart was
using this vegetation to cover his approach on July 3, but it also prevented him from having a clear
Page 4 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Figure 1.
Spring 2013
Map of the Gettysburg area, showing the location of the main battlefield and the distance and direction from it
to the East Cavalry Battlefield. The main concentration of Union forces was along Cemetery Ridge and curving
around the “fishhook” to Culp’s Hill. The main concentration of Confederate forces was along Seminary Ridge.
The red “Pickett” marks the location of “Pickett’s Charge,” the movement of Pickett’s Confederate forces
against Union troops. The red “Stuart” shows the movement of Stuart’s Confederate forces toward the northeast
along York Road, placing him behind the Union Army, followed by his turn southeastward toward the East
Cavalry Battlefield (modified from Brown, 1962).
field of view of any enemy presence (Kross, 1997, p. 48–49). However, Union cavalry had already
been alerted to the approach of Confederate cavalry by Eleventh Corps troops stationed on Cemetery
Hill. This enabled Union commander David Gregg (who also appreciated the terrain) to position his
troopers for a possible attack, and to pull George Custer’s brigade—which was preparing to move to
the south end of the battlefield—over to support him (Longacre, 1986, p. 229).
Page 5 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
Figure 2. Geologic units exposed in the vicinity of the
Gettysburg battlefield (after Faill, 2003, and Smoot,
1999).
Confederate Arrival
Ironically perhaps, the Confederates
were attacking from the north-northwest and
the Union was defending from the southsoutheast. Upon arrival, Stuart ordered four
cannon shots fired to the north, south, east,
and west. There is no evidence to support this
as a signal to Lee, but it could have been an
attempt to feel out Union presence, and it
worked a little too well. Union cannon soon
opened up on the Confederate guns. A short
artillery duel ensued, which the Union
gunners won (Davenport, 1988, p. 41).
Skirmishers (dismounted cavalry) were
deployed from both sides. Wade Hampton’s
and Fitzhugh Lee’s brigades (Fitz Lee was a
nephew of Robert E. Lee and later governor
of Virginia) were not in the position that
Stuart desired (perhaps Stuart meant the
cannon signals for them) and revealed
themselves too soon to Union cavalry, prompting a Union concentration of force. Stuart was also out of
contact with Hampton’s and Fitz Lee’s brigades, making him de facto commander of the left wing.
Stuart had meant to conceal these two brigades, bringing them out of the woods in an unexpected place
to charge into the enemy before they could concentrate forces. Their prematurely revealing their
positions thwarted that plan (Wittenberg, 2002, p. 56–57).
What Happened Next
With the situation already not going according to Stuart’s wishes, he was still determined to make
the best of it. Around 1:00 p.m., dismounted Confederate skirmishers from the 34th Virginia advanced
toward the Rummel farm (Figure 3) and fired into Union skirmishers. Stuart meant these skirmishers to
be a screen to his true intention, which was to cleave the Union cavalry from the Union right and drive
through and scatter them. By 2:00 p.m., more Confederates, the 14th and 16th Virginia, were thrown
into the skirmish line, and Custer added the 5th Michigan for the Union.
Fitz Lee threw out his own skirmish line as well (Kross, 1997, p. 49). Stuart, by one account
seeing a gap in the Union line and by another account just wanting to break the tenacious Union
resistance, ordered a cavalry charge by the 9th and 13th Virginia squadrons, who drove into the flank
of the dismounted 5th Michigan (who were then forced to withdraw). At this point, either Gregg
ordered Custer to lead a charge to counter the Virginians or Custer saw the danger and took the
initiative himself. Regardless, Custer led the 7th Michigan troopers, yelling, “come on you
Wolverines,” and chased the overmatched 9th and 13th back to the Phipps fence (the location of this
Page 6 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Figure 3.
Spring 2013
Map showing the East Cavalry Battlefield, July 3, 1863. Gray colors represent Confederate troop locations; blue
colors represent Union troop locations. JDL, Jeff Davis Legion.
fence is no longer precisely known) (Kross, 1997, p. 51). To counter this move, Stuart ordered the 1st
North Carolina and Jeff Davis Legion of the 1st Virginia to charge into Custer’s left flank. Other
elements of the 1st Virginia joined in and pushed the 7th Michigan back to Union artillery lines, even
overextending themselves and leaving their exhausted mounts open to counterattack. Fifth Michigan
cavalry and canister (cannon firing ball bearings or shrapnel, similar to a big shotgun) forced the
Confederates back. Custer then bolted back along Low Dutch Road to where the 1st Michigan was in
order to get them to charge in support of the 5th Michigan (Kross, 1997, p. 55). Meanwhile, Stuart felt
that a final push was needed to break through and threw in even more troops from Hampton’s and Fitz
Lee’s brigades, a total of 8 regiments (some 1,500 troopers) (Figure 3). As these horsemen came out of
the woods, even Union troops murmured in admiration at the sight of sabers flashing in the sun amid
well-ordered units. Union horse artillery fired into the advancing Confederates, but they closed ranks
and came on, somewhat reminiscent of the October 25, 1854, charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava
during the Crimean War immortalized by Alfred Lord Tennyson’s famous poem (Davenport, 1988,
p. 48).
Page 7 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
The Union Side
Colonel Charles Town, commander of the 1st Michigan, was with his men when Custer rode up
and advised him that he (Town) would have to lead his troopers against the Confederates. Town was
gravely ill from consumption (called tuberculosis in modern times) and could barely stay in the saddle
(he had strapped himself into his saddle); his voice was weak, but he felt it was better to die in battle
than waste away. Custer, after politely informing Town of the necessity of the charge, took it upon
himself to lead this charge as well and again yelled, “come on you Wolverines,” and off they went.
Some 7th Michigan troopers joined them (Longacre, 1986, p. 238).
Cavalry Clash
As the two charges clashed, the melee ensued, and the outcome hung in the balance, dismounted
Union cavalry on both flanks took the initiative, mounted their horses and charged into the flanks of
the Confederates (Wittenberg, 2002, p. 109). One of these was Captain William Miller of the 3rd
Pennsylvania cavalry who, being concerned that he might be court-martialed for abandoning his
position, told a lieutenant of his intention to charge his command into the Confederate left flank. Not
only was he not court-martialed, but he was awarded the Medal of Honor 33 years later for his
initiative. Miller sustained an arm wound and broken sword in the action. Custer had his second horse
shot out from underneath him that day (Davenport, 1988, p. 49). It is arguable that if Custer’s
Michiganders had not been on detached duty to Gregg’s division, the Confederates might have broken
through. Custer, whatever one may think of him (he is better known today for his defeat at the Little
Bighorn in Montana, 13 years later), came through on this day doing what he did best: leading a charge
straight down the middle, nothing fancy or subtle about it (Figure 4). Now being assailed from three
sides, the Confederates decided to withdraw back to Cress Ridge. Sporadic small arms and artillery
exchanges continued into the night. As Gregg later said, his (Stuart’s) was to do, ours was to prevent
(Adkin, 2008, p. 501).
It was the second-largest cavalry clash ever to take place on the North American continent, behind
only Brandy Station, Va., on June 9 during the run up to the Battle of Gettysburg. There, Stuart was in
a situation he was not prepared for and almost suffered a humiliating defeat, but managed to rally his
forces to a draw by the end of the day. It is an example that serves to illustrate how the circumstances
created by geological forces over millions of years define what takes place in more modern times, on
the fields of battle that have determined historical outcomes and in many other human endeavors.
The “What Ifs”
Of the many “what ifs” of the Battle of Gettysburg, the one involving the role of Stuart’s cavalry
is one of the most written and talked about. What if he had not been riding around the Union Army, but
had been screening the ANV and protecting General Lee’s left, thus freeing up infantry for their assault
on Culps Hill? Presumably his men and horses would not have been as exhausted, they would have
been in place to be the ANV’s eyes and ears and they, instead of Confederate infantry, may have met
Brigadier General John Buford’s Union cavalry outside Gettysburg on that fateful July 1, which could
have changed history. If not for the favorable terrain, arguably the only terrain on the battlefield truly
suitable for cavalry action on a significant scale, its doubtful Stuart would have even made the attempt
to outflank Meade’s line.
The ridges in the rear of the Union position were of a more gentle nature (Cress Ridge, for
instance), not unlike Cemetery and Seminary Ridges, which rise perhaps 20 to 30 feet higher than the
ground to the front and rear of them and slope off very gradually. If Cemetery and Culps Hills had
extended further east-southeast (in other words, if the York Haven Diabase sill had extended further),
Page 8 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
Figure 4. Looking toward the Union line from the center of the battlefield. Custer led two charges from the far tree line.
providing a longer, higher, and rockier natural barrier for Stuart to maneuver around to get in the Union
rear, he would probably not have afforded the extra time that would take (not to mention the additional
time his approach would have been exposed to detection) and the sill would likely have constricted any
terrain favorable to cavalry action. In such an environment, it may have more closely resembled the
terrain near the base of Big Round Top, where an ill-advised cavalry charge later that same afternoon
by Union forces against fortified Confederate infantry resulted in disaster in terrain that was
completely unsuitable for cavalry action. The problem for Stuart was in getting in position undetected
in a reasonable time. He would have to have gone miles more out of his way not to be observed from
Cemetery Hill as he was, and flanking the Union left would have been impractical, especially as there
was already Union cavalry operating at the base of Big Round Top. Nevertheless, the battle, a tactical
draw but strategic loss for Stuart, was over, and soon the ANV would withdraw back to Virginia while
the war would continue for almost another two years. They may not have known it at the time, but the
South would never come so close to victory again.
SELECTED REFERENCES
Adkins, Mark, 2008, The Gettysburg companion: Mechanicsburg, Pa., Stackpole Books, 544 p.
Brown, Andrew, 1962, Geology and the Gettysburg campaign: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Educational
Series 5, 14 p.
Page 9 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
Davenport, P. M., 1988, The role of the cavalry at Gettysburg June 30, 1863–July 3, 1863, A guide to the battlefield:
Carlisle, Pa., U.S. Army War College Military Studies Program Paper, 88 p.
Dunbar, C. O., and Rodgers, John, 1957, Principles of stratigraphy: New York, John Wiley, 356 p.
Faill, R. T., 2003, The early Mesozoic Birdsboro central Atlantic margin basin in the Mid-Atlantic region, eastern United
States: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 115, p. 406–421.
Inners, J. D., Cuffey, R. J., Smith, R. C., II, and others, 2006, Rifts, diabase, and the topographic “fishhook”—Terrain
and military geology of the Battle of Gettysburg—July 1–3, 1863: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., OpenFile Report 06–02, 111 p.
Kross, Gary, 1997, Gettysburg vignettes—True cavalry, J. E. B. Stuart and George Custer at Gettysburg: Blue and Gray
Magazine, v. 14, issue 5, p. 18–22, 47–57.
Krynine, P. D., 1950, Petrology, stratigraphy, and origin of the Triassic sedimentary rocks of Connecticut: Connecticut
Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin, v. 73, 239 p.
Longacre, E. G., 1986, The cavalry at Gettysburg—A tactical study of mounted operations during the Civil War’s pivotal
campaign, 9 June–14 July 1863: Rutherford, N.J., Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 338 p.
Longacre, E. G., 2000, Lincoln’s cavalrymen—A history of the mounted forces of the Army of the Potomac:
Mechanicsburg, Pa., Stackpole Books, 480 p.
Olsen, P. E., 1986, A 40-million year lake record of early Mesozoic orbital climatic forcing: Science, v. 234, p. 842–848.
Olsen, P. E., and Kent, D. V., 1999, Long-period Milankovitch cycles from the Late Triassic and Early Jurassic of eastern
North America and their implications for the calibration of the early Mesozoic time-scale and the longterm
behaviour of the planets: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences, v. 357, p. 1761–1786.
Olsen, P. E., Kent, D. V., Cornet, Bruce, and others, 1996, High-resolution stratigraphy of the Newark rift basin (early
Mesozoic, eastern North America): Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 108, p. 40–77.
Sears, S. W., 2003, Gettysburg: Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 623 p.
Smith, R. C., II, and Keen, R. C., 2004, Regional rifts and the Battle of Gettysburg: Pennsylvania Geology, v. 34, no. 3,
p. 2–12.
Smoot, J. P., 1999, Early Mesozoic—Sedimentary rocks, in Shultz, C. H., ed., The geology of Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., Special Publication 1, p. 180–201. [Co-published with Pittsburgh
Geological Society.]
Stose, G. W., and Bascom, F., 1929, Fairfield-Gettysburg folio, Pennsylvania: U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Atlas of
the U.S., Folio 225, 22 p.
Turner-Peterson, C. E., 1980, Sedimentology and uranium mineralization in the Triassic-Jurassic Newark Basin,
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, in Turner-Peterson, C. E., ed., Uranium in sedimentary rocks—Application of the
facies concept to exploration: Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Rocky Mountain Section,
Short Course Notes, p. 149–171.
Wittenberg, E. J., 2002, Protecting the flank—The Battles for Brinkerhoff’s Ridge and East Cavalry Field: Columbus,
Ohio, Ironclad Publishing, 203 p.
Page 10 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
IN MEMORIAM
Arthur A. Socolow
1921—2013
Dr. Arthur A. Socolow, State Geologist of Pennsylvania for a quarter of a century from 1961 until
his retirement in 1986, passed away on March 25 near his home in Gloucester, Mass. That sad news
has caused many of us to reflect upon him as a mentor, a colleague, a friend, a gentleman, and a
staunch proponent of geology. The passion Art had for geology can be seen in a series of editorials he
wrote for Pennsylvania Geology, the Bureau’s quarterly
magazine that was started under his watch in 1969. In the
first issue, Art opined, “With this publication we aim to
share with our fellow citizens the activities and services of
the Pennsylvania Geological Survey, as well as other
significant and newsworthy developments in the broad
field of geology and earth sciences” (Socolow, 1969a).
Art’s view that the practical application of the science
be part of any discussion permeated all his efforts, and he
did not miss the opportunity to turn a newsworthy event
into a geologically pertinent discussion. His second
editorial reflects on the momentous first moon landing that
many of us viewed, and then he deftly wove the
importance of geoscience into the practical impacts that
earth rocks have in our everyday lives (Socolow, 1969b).
Those earth rocks, the mineral resources of
Pennsylvania, were among Art’s favorite subjects. In 1957,
Art came to the Bureau as an economic geologist. He
Arthur A. Socolow. Photograph by Carl Socolow,
worked initially under State Geologist Carlyle Gray and
Art’s son.
briefly under acting State Geologist Alan Geyer. In 1961,
Art was named State Geologist by Secretary of Internal
Affairs Genevieve Blatt. Although he was already an ardent supporter of the science, he recognized the
need for a more aggressive mapping of the existing and potential geologic resources of the
commonwealth.
Art tried to be supportive of all of the good aspects of the natural resource industry, clearly
striving to make sure that the Bureau provided a wide base of support for the commonwealth.
Bituminous and anthracite coal mapping, done in conjunction with the USGS (U.S. Geological
Survey), became a priority. When given the opportunity to host the Association of American State
Geologists in the 1980s, he showcased Pennsylvania’s anthracite coal region by what was considered to
be a very well received field trip. During his tenure, the oil and gas industry also was well served from
our office in Pittsburgh, which produced many valuable reports on oil and gas geology. During a brief
period in which the Bureau was given a new responsibility that placed us in charge of regulating oil
and gas wells, Art played a role in the creation of a separate Bureau of Oil and Gas Management to
take over that major task. Among nonfossil fuel resources, Art supported the publication in 1961 of
Page 11 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
J. F. McCauley’s Uranium in Pennsylvania. He later authorized detailed studies of copper-uranium
occurrences in the Picture Rocks and Sonestown quadrangles, primarily in Sullivan County, and
uranium-thorium occurrences in the Reading Prong, which extends from Reading eastward. He
understood that environmental issues would make uranium mining unlikely, but knew that it would be
wise to document such occurrences anyway. As a result of this foresight, the Pennsylvania Geological
Survey was immediately able to indicate where indoor radon would be worst within the Reading Prong
when that topic suddenly arose.
Among the nonfuel minerals, studies of the State Line chromite district in southern Lancaster
County by Davis M. Lapham were encouraged and provided the basis for several other studies in that
area that followed and are presently ongoing by the Bureau. Art also requested investigation of zinclead mines and occurrences. An extended
study of Cornwall-type copper-iron deposits
begun by Carlyle Gray and continued by
Davis Lapham was of personal interest to
Art. (Staff geologists found one aspect of
this latter to be particularly interesting as Art
was certain that there was no gold in
Pennsylvania, and the Cornwall study
documented a minimum of 64,000 ounces
of gold recovered.) A summary of
Pennsylvania’s metallic mineral resources by
Arthur W. Rose of The Pennsylvania State
University was encouraged and published by
the Bureau. Art’s belief was that all possible
data should be made available to the public
in simple formats, and this report provided
an example of that. Whenever possible, Art
encouraged sampling and analyses of
Pennsylvania’s limestone and dolomite
deposits and authorized a major compilation
of analytical data on these lithologies.
Ongoing programs were maintained to
sample, analyze, and test clays and shales
for various applications. Art felt so strongly
about the nonmetallic mineral resources that Dr. Socolow with Genevieve Blatt, Secretary of Internal Affairs
from 1954 to 1966.
he once decreed that the Mineral Resources
Division should be producing a “mine of the
month” article for each issue of Pennsylvania Geology to showcase interesting niche operations in
Pennsylvania. Art also supported the publication of many water-resource reports that were prepared in
cooperation with the USGS.
To make our geologic findings more useful and bring them to a wider audience, Art promoted
various innovations such as a three-column legend on geologic maps to include rock descriptions,
hydrologic and mineral resource information, and engineering characteristics. To reach an audience
beyond the professional geologist, in addition to this quarterly magazine, Art promoted such initiatives
as the publication of state park guides, a series of educational booklets, and the printing of page-sized
Page 12 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
geologic maps that could be distributed at no charge. Mineral and fossil collectors were supported with
multiple editions of field collecting guides.
Another of the principal accomplishments of Art’s tenure as State Geologist was the completion
of topographic mapping of Pennsylvania at the standard 1:24,000 scale through a cooperative
agreement with the USGS, for
which the Survey was a funding
partner. As this was nearing
completion, Art decided that the
Bureau should take advantage of
the newly available quadrangles
and use them as base maps to
prepare new geologic maps,
which would provide the basic
data for a new geologic map of
the entire state. This map would
replace and significantly update
and improve the 1960 version of
Map 1 that had been compiled
at a scale of 1:250,000. His
charge to each of the several
geologists assigned to this task
was to complete gathering data
and interpreting each quadrangle
within one working day. When the new Map 1 was nearing completion, Art recognized that the new
interpretations represented a valuable dataset that should be additionally prepared as page-sized
quadrangles; this was published as Map 61 in 1981.
Art also did his best to support the Bureau in logistical ways. He led us through various trials and
tribulations, none more devastating than the flood caused by tropical storm Agnes that completely
inundated our headquarters in 1972. He made sure that we not only recovered in such ways as
rebuilding our facilities and library collection, but also in not returning to a flood-prone location. He
made use of this as a learning opportunity, writing in Pennsylvania Geology, “As we are struggling to
rebuild, our hope is that all of Pennsylvania may be wiser from the experience of Agnes. There is
clearly a need for a sound, statewide program of floodplain management. . . . We should not be . . .
consoled by misleading statistical probabilities of a so-called once-in-a-hundred-year flood, or two
hundred year flood. . . . We speak from experience” (Socolow, 1972). After spending a few years in
temporary quarters, the Bureau finally moved into a facility that more than met the requirement to
avoid another flood, a high-rise building in downtown Harrisburg. As Art wrote about that location in
this magazine after we moved in, “While only one block from the river, this high ground was not
flooded during the 1972 Agnes flood, nor do we anticipate that our quarters on the eighth and ninth
floors are flood-prone” (Socolow, 1975a). The Bureau remained there for the next 17 years.
Beyond this list of accomplishments, Art had many friends who have made interesting, amusing
and insightful comments that are woven below into this article. The comments reflect the memories
each person has of Art; memories that, although they belong to others, have meaning for us. Tom Berg,
retired Ohio State Geologist and, before that, a 24-year employee of the Pennsylvania Geological
Survey who became chief of our Geologic Mapping Division, touches on that notion:
Page 13 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
When Art was getting ready to retire in 1986, I asked him what he would miss the most. With little
hesitation, he said he would miss the daily phone calls that he would take from citizens who needed
help. He loved to talk with ordinary people who needed assistance locating a water well, or who
couldn’t understand a problematic foundation condition.
Dr. Socolow received his B.S. degree in geology from Rutgers University and both his M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees from Columbia University. While in graduate school, he also worked with the USGS.
After receiving his Ph.D., he began his career as a professor of geology, teaching at Southern
Methodist University, Boston University, and the University of Massachusetts.
Art had a strong sense of what a state geological survey should be. This sentiment is well
expressed, again by Tom Berg:
His conviction, as I saw it, was that the state survey should discern and provide practical, appliedgeology information to help citizens solve everyday problems about mineral, water, and energy
resources. He wanted the staff to produce information about engineering characteristics of rocks,
geologic hazards, land use, and environmental attributes. Although some state surveys are lodged in
universities, Art was not inclined toward that administrative structure. He did not see the work of a
survey oriented toward purely academic research. “High science” was not the responsibility of the state
geological survey. I believe Art saw the agency as a bridge to carry pure-research results to meet the
practical needs of citizens.
His dedication to the Pennsylvania Geological Survey extended to other surveys as well, with
whom he shared his advice and wisdom, particularly with newly appointed state geologists:
Art was very helpful to me when I was getting the Massachusetts Geological Survey up and running in
2002. I visited him a couple of times in Gloucester overlooking the ocean and not too far from the
great Cape Ann earthquake of 1755. I asked Art to serve on my State Mapping Advisory Committee
but due to failing health [he] was only able to attend a couple of times. I appreciated his advice and
perspective. [Steve Mabee, Massachusetts State Geologist]
He was a good friend and colleague. We spent many happy times together. Art always offered good
advice to me on survey issues when I became Connecticut State Geologist. [Hugo Thomas]
I first met Art at a NEGSA [Northeast Section of the Geological Society of America] meeting in
Pennsylvania, I think in 1971 or 1972. His cordiality immediately drew me to liking him and
appreciating his strength in running the Pennsylvania Survey and helping lead the AASG [Association
of American State Geologists]. We have lost a great friend and colleague. [Robert Fakundiny, retired
New York State Geologist]
Art was also an ardent believer that geology, mineral development, and the environment could
live side by side, and each could thrive. He wrote numerous editorials pointing out the nexus of
geologic effort and sound environmental policy. In August 1970, he wrote:
The time is now ripe for our geologic researchers to carry their efforts that one giant step further which
will relate their sophisticated research efforts and findings to man and his environment. Research
geology and environmental geology need not be separate and incompatible, as some of our
traditionalist colleagues contend. Environmental geology need not be non-scientific, even as research
need not be limited to enumeration of principles and processes [Socolow, 1970a].
In December of that same year, Art wrote:
Geology by its definition, the science of the earth, has always been an environmental science.
Geologists by their studies of the forms and processes on the earth’s surface have long been engaged in
Page 14 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
environmental research. What has changed, however, is that the rest of our society has been awakening
to the importance and to the mistreatment of our environment. And as more people in all walks of life
begin to involve themselves with the environment, they are recognizing and utilizing geology more and
more as a vital component in environmental planning and protection [Socolow, 1970b].
Dr. Socolow had a “fun” side as well. In December of 1975, he embraced the concept of the Pet
Rock, turning the then current rage into a valuable teaching moment:
As is so often the case, we must point out that again geologists have been ahead of the times!
Geologists have long had pet rocks; many geologists have office shelves full of them, and some even
take their special pets home. Certainly the geologist is a master at training his pets; on the shelf they
never move, but on the hillside they roll over at the slightest prod of the geologic pick.
Speaking seriously, the esthetics of rocks and minerals have appealed to hundreds of thousands in all
parts of the world [Socolow, 1975b].
Walter Anderson, retired Maine State Geologist, wrote:
I recall awaiting the Pennsylvania Geological Survey monthly news magazine to read Art’s timely,
thoughtful comments entitled, “From the Desk of the State Geologist.” I found his writing very useful
(even plagiarized a few) which applied a broad range of commentary on many issues confronting State
Surveys in general and the Maine Geological Survey in particular. The Pennsylvania Geological
Survey compiled Art’s commentary and produced a publication, “From the Desk of the State Geologist,
Arthur A. Socolow, 1969–1986” [Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 1986]. It offers insights into Art’s
personal philosophy and science issues as valuable today as it was when Art wrote them—
recommended for all libraries!
Art’s efforts on behalf of the science of geology were not restricted to the Pennsylvania
Geological Survey. He served on numerous advisory committees, including some for the U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Energy, National Research Council, and the Interstate
Oil Compact Commission. In addition, Art was President of the Association of American State
Geologists, the Geologic Section of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the
North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature.
In 2007, he was recognized again by his peers by being named the recipient of the Ian Campbell
Medal, a prestigious honor awarded by the Geological Society of America. He was the 26th recipient
of the award, given annually in memory of Ian Campbell, a man of remarkable accomplishment and
influence. Dr. Socolow’s long history of service to the science and profession made him a ready choice.
Dr. Socolow was a gentleman in the full sense of the word:
In public, and in most personal settings, he was kind, polite, sympathetic, and good-humored. He never
condoned foul language or off-color jokes. In the 21 years I worked with him, I never heard Art use a
four-letter word. In secluded meetings, when risqué jokes started, I could see that Art was very
uncomfortable. [Tom Berg]
When I took the position as Pennsylvania State Geologist, I received a hand-written note of
congratulation from Dr. Socolow, a man I did not know. It was thoughtful; spoke highly of the Survey
and its personnel; and admonished me to carry the institution forward. It was touching to see how
much he still cared, and frankly somewhat daunting to recognize that my distinguished predecessor
was watching! [George Love]
Page 15 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
REFERENCES
Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 1986, From the desk of the State Geologist—Editorial comments of Pennsylvania State
Geologist Arthur A. Socolow, from Pennsylvania Geology, 1969–1986: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th ser., 119 p.
Socolow, A. A., 1969a, From the desk of the State Geologist: Pennsylvania Geology, v. 1, no. 1, p. 1.
_________, 1969b, From the desk of the State Geologist: Pennsylvania Geology, v. 1, no. 2, p. 1.
_________, 1970a, From the desk of the State Geologist—Geologic research a need for relevance: Pennsylvania Geology,
v. 1, no. 7, p. 1.
_________, 1970b, From the desk of the State Geologist—Metropolitan environmental studies: Pennsylvania Geology, v. 1,
no. 9, p. 1.
_________, 1972, From the desk of the State Geologist—The lessons of Agnes: Pennsylvania Geology, v. 3, no. 6, p. 1.
_________, 1975a, From the desk of the State Geologist—The survey has a new home: Pennsylvania Geology, v. 6, no. 2,
p. 1.
_________, 1975b, From the desk of the State Geologist—A man’s best friend: Pennsylvania Geology, v. 6, no. 6, p. 1.
—This article is a collective contribution by friends and colleagues.
Page 16 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
BUREAU NEWS
Bureau staff geologist Antonette Markowski presented an “Update on Coalbed Methane Activities
in Pennsylvania” on April 24 by invitation of the North American Coalbed Methane Forum in
Canonsburg, Pa. Highlights of the presentation included an overview of energy demand in the United
States and Pennsylvania, why CBM (coalbed methane) and methane in general are important to capture
and use, regulatory issues and ownership, economic coal beds, types of CBM wells, industry activities,
and domestic energy incentives. Although CBM is a comparatively small subset of the total natural gas
resources in Pennsylvania, it has its place as a viable contributor to our energy mix in addition to
creating a safer environment for underground mine operations by its capture and use. A poster session
on this topic was also offered by Markowski at the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Convention and Exhibition on May 22 in Pittsburgh.
PENNSYLVANIA GEOFACT
Meet “Goliath,” possibly the largest
clear quartz crystal ever found in
Pennsylvania. Goliath is a 49-pound monster
that is about 16 inches long, and it was found
in Lancaster, Pa., during sewer construction.
The construction was part of the Works
Project Administration program, a federal
program that ran between 1935 and 1943 as
a way to provide jobs during the Depression.
After the crystal was found, a worker put it
in his farm wagon and hauled it away, and it
resided for more than 30 years in his rock
garden. Goliath is now owned by Jim and
Mimi Craig Stauffer, having been given to
them by a student’s grandfather.
Page 17 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey
Main Headquarters
Pittsburgh Office
3240 Schoolhouse Road
Middletown, PA 17057–3534
Phone: 717–702–2017 | FAX: 717–702–2065
400 Waterfront Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15222–4745
Phone: 412–442–4235 | FAX: 412–442–4298
DIRECTOR’S OFFICE
Director and State Geologist
George E. W. Love, P. G.
717–702–2017
Administrative Services
Connie F. Cross
Elizabeth C. Lyon
Jody L. Rebuck
717–702–2054
717–702–2063
717–702–2073
GEOLOGIC AND GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SERVICES
Michael E. Moore, P.G. 717–702–2024
PAMAP and Public Outreach
Helen L. Delano, P.G.
GIS Services
Mark A. Brown
Caron E. O’Neil, P.G.
Thomas G. Whitfield, P.G.
717–702–2031
717–702–2077
717–702–2042
717–702–2023
IT and Database Services
Sandipkumar P. Patel
Mark A. Dornes
Pedro A. Forero
Library Services
Jody L. Smale
717–702–4277
717–702–4278
412–442–5826
717–702–2020
GEOLOGIC MAPPING
Gale C. Blackmer, P.G. 717–702–2032
Stratigraphic Studies
Gary M. Fleeger, P.G.
Rose-Anna Behr, P.G.
Clifford H. Dodge, P.G.
Antonette K. Markowski, P.G.
James R. Shaulis, P.G.
717–702–2045
717–702–2035
717–702–2036
717–702–2038
717–702–2037
Groundwater and Environmental Geology
Stuart O. Reese, P.G.
717–702–2028
Aaron D. Bierly
717–702–2034
Kristen L. Hand
717–702–2046
William E. Kochanov, P.G.
717–702–2033
Victoria V. Neboga
717–702–2026
MINERAL RESOURCES
Kristin M. Carter, P.G. 412–442–4234
Mineral Resource Analysis
John H. Barnes, P.G.
Leonard J. Lentz, P.G.
John C. Neubaum
Stephen G. Shank, P.G.
717–702–2025
717–702–2040
717–702–2039
717–702–2021
Petroleum and Subsurface Geology
Kasaundra L. Ellis
412–442–4236
Lynn J. Levino
412–442–4299
Katherine W. Schmid
412–442–4232
Page 18 of 19
Pennsylvania Geology
Spring 2013
PENNSYLVANIA GEOLOGY is published quarterly by the
Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
3240 Schoolhouse Road, Middletown, PA 17057–3534.
This edition’s editor: Anne Lutz.
Links to websites were valid as of the date of release of this issue.
Contributed articles are welcome.
Guidelines for manuscript preparation may be obtained at
www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/publications/pageolonline/pageoolguide/index.htm.
IA
G EOLOGI
EST
.
C
AL
SU RVEY
P E N N S Y LV A N
To subscribe, send an email to [email protected].
1836
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Tom Corbett, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Richard J. Allan, Secretary
OFFICE OF CONSERVATION AND TECHNICAL SERVICES
Cindy Adams Dunn, Deputy Secretary
BUREAU OF TOPOGRAPHIC AND GEOLOGIC SURVEY
George E. W. Love, Director
Bureau website: www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/index.aspx
DCNR website: www.dcnr.state.pa.us/index.aspx
Pennsylvania home page: www.pa.gov
Page 19 of 19