The strangest 0.05% of the geological history

Abstract

The historical geological perspective is the main cause that much more is known about young rocks than about older ones. Most is therefore, obviously, known about Quaternary rocks, but this does not imply that the Quaternary is understood much better than the older periods. On the contrary, facies distributions — particularly in glacigenic successions — seem often so much more chaotic than in successions from other periods that the Quaternary could be considered as the strangest 0.05% in the geological history. It is most unlikely, however, that the Quaternary differs so much from other periods. It must therefore be concluded that many of the apparent discrepancies between Quaternary and older rocks either are due to different approaches followed during investigations, or reflect a geologically still immature situation, because destructive agents have had insufficient time to remove material or to obscure specific characteristics. In spite of these probably fundamental differences between Quaternary and older sediments — that will disappear with time — it is likely that the application of Quaternary investigation methods to older rocks — and that of hard-rock research methods to Quaternary successions — may contribute substantially to a better understanding of both the remote geological past and the nearby geological history.