Seke, A.

English

Seke,  A.

National Research Database of Zimbabwe

Von Humboldt and Ritter: Contributions to Geographical Methodology

IDS OpenDocs

GEOGRAPHICAL VOLUME 11 NUMBER 1 March 1988
EDUCATION
MAGAZINE
Produced by the Geographical Association 
of Zimbabwe
Edited by: 0. Namasasu
Department of Curriculum Studies
University of Zimbabwe
P.0. Box MP 167
MOUNT PLEASANT
Harare
Zimbabwe
Free to paid up members of the Geographical Association 
Price to non—members Z$ 4,00
CONTENTS
Crj i f  n f  i al ■
‘—  >—* -i- '—'»  J . C l - i a a s a s s B s a a a a r s a B s a i i B x i s a a a a s x a B a B
Towards a Decolonised Radical - 
Southern African Geography
Meeting the Challenge: Geography and
and Geographers in National and 
Regional Development
Aspects of the Growth and Structure of 
Pre-Colonial African Towns; The Case 
of Kano in northern Nigeria
Flood Hazards in Geography?
More Causes Than Drought, Many Experiences 
To Share — An Interview with Hussein Idris
Von Humboldt and Ritter: Contributions
to Geographical Methodology .............
Use of Conservation Education Camp ......
Page
i i i
1
l
VON HUMBOLDT AND RITTER:
CQNTRIBUTIONS TO GEOBRAPHICAL METHODOLOGY
by
A. Seke
Makumbi Mission
The German scholars, Alexander von Humboldt (1769—1859) |and 
Carl Ritter (i799—1859) are said to be the founders of modern 
geography by many writers e.g. Wooldridge and East (1956); 
Freeman, (1961); Broek, (1965). James (1972) refers; to 
Humboldt and Ritter as forming the bridge between classical and 
modern geography. The rise of modern geography is part of the 
Renaissance of the 19th century, a movement like that of the 
16th century but penetrating deeper into the realms of thought.
Geography before Humboldt and Ritter was haphazard, 
unsystematic and descriptive. It was a jumble of political, 
statistical facts and place names, a catalogue of facts about 
the earth's surface. A good example of the geographical 
literature of that time was a text by Hohann Ernst Fabri's 
'Kurzer Abris der Beographie’ which appeared in Germany between 
1785-1795. It was an arid list of countries, political divi­
sions cities, reigning houses, etc. Ritter (in Allgemeine 
Erdkunde, 1862) complains:
A systematic organisation of material is seldom to be 
found in them ... They contain at bottom only an 
arbitrary, unorganised, unsystematic compilation of 
all sorts of noteworthy phenomena, which in the 
different parts of the globe appear to be especially 
striking ... The facts are arranged like the pieces 
of a patchwork quilt, now one way, now another as if 
each disconnected piece could stand by itself. (pp = 
21-22).
The progress of geography during this time was hampered’ by 
lack of reliable facts systematical1y collected. No wonder 
people Tike Varenius and Carpenter failed in their attempts to 
search for underlying principles. Crone (1964) notes that the 
facts were largely uncontrolled observations of men of varying 
capabilities in distant lands, he speculation of long dead 
philosophers and selected texts from the Bible. Without 
reliable facts generalisations and theorising were dangerous 
pursuits. The voyages of discovery did much to increase human­
kind's knowledge about the earth's surface. The contemporary 
evolution of scientific thought associated with the work, of 
Montesquieu, Voltaire and Rousseau, did much to stimulate the 
work of thes two scholars. This evolution of scientific 
thought was affecting a change in outlook which slowly but 
decisively affected the development of science.
It is against such a background and the stimulus of the new 
philosophy that the contribution of Humboldt and Ritter to
50
be seen. Crone (1964) describes Humboldtmodern geography can
An accurate and painstaking surveyor, and industrious 
botanical Collector, a student of political and 
social conditions, an untiring i-riquirer into the 
myriad of natural phenomena, which present themselves 
to his keen eye, but above all, he was pondering upon 
the natural world and searching out its underlying 
unit. <□. 51)
Tatham (in Taylor, 1951), writes of Humboldt as a man of 
great versatile genius, well informed in many branches of 
science. Humboldt first became a mining engineer after 
studying Geology under Werner at Freiburg but soon turned to 
the career of a natural scientist and an explorer, He also 
read physics and chemistry. His interest in geography was 
inherited from George Forster who taught him the method of 
careful observation and the critical treatment of facts. 
Forster's artistic but scientific description of the landscape 
greatly impressed Humboldt. He developed Forster s technique 
to the peak of perfection and his method became a model and a 
spur to later workers.
Humboldt's aim was to recognise unity in the vast diversity 
of phenomena and by exercise of thought, and the combination of 
observation, to discern the constancy of phenomena in the midst 
of apparent changes. His method was empirical and inductive. 
He made multitudinous observations from 40 different instru­
ments he carried on his journeys. He accurately recorded 
measurement5 of heights, areas, lengths, temperatures, lati­
tude, etc. Most of his journeys were in South America and 
Russia where he collected, classified and interpreted plants, 
animals and rocks according to their origin and geographical 
distribution. Tatham goes on to point out that nothing escaped 
Humboldt's eye, and no aspect of nature failed to arouse his 
scientific curiosity. Because of this Humboldt made contribu­
tions to a number of fields.
Humboldt used the term climatology and writers like 
Dickinson (1969) think he probably coined it. The basic proce­
dure was to arrange the facts in groups, measure and assess, so 
that the phenomena of warmth could be brought under empirical 
laws. Using data he collected from his measurements, Humboldt 
compiled isothermal lines on a map. He illustrated that the 
lines near the equator were parallel to it, but spread north 
over the sea and south over the land and that they reach 
further north on the western sides of continents. He also came 
up with the idea of continentality after examining his tempera­
ture figures.
The result of his massive collection of South American 
plants was the firm basis of plant geography. He distinguished 
between the distribution of individual species and the 
numerical associations of plants in particular places-. 
Uompi 3. i ng lists of plants by continents obscured the 
distribution of plants in different isothermal zones. He 
pointed out that other facts, apart from climate, influenced 
plant distribution. His argument was that the study must seek 
laws that determine the physiognomy of nature in general, the
regional character of vegetation of the whole of the earth's 
surface, that explains the grouping of contrasted forms in 
different altitudes. It must pursue the causes of the 
recurrence of all forms of animal and plant life in fixed ever 
recurring types. This in fact clearly emphasizes the core of 
plant geography.
Humboldt's method was to describe the face of the earth as a 
'whole' and he included people and their work in the concept of 
nature and natural areas. He argued that only through the 
interconnections of phenomena can one evaluate any one of them. 
The aim was not simply to measure one phenomenon but to bring 
out the ways in which the great variety of observable phenomena 
of the landscape are associated and interconnected with each 
other at different places. As noted above, Humboldt contri­
buted to a variety of fields of knowledge and he was also 
concerned with the areal associations of nature and organic 
phenomena. He is generally ranked as founder of plant and 
physical geography. As he also recognised the interdependence 
of areal phenomena and the need for explaining any one set of 
spatially distributed phenomena in relation to their spatial 
context, Humboldt can, in this sense also be considered to be a 
regional1st. His position and work stand unassailable for the 
reason that he perceived clearly the limits of the field in 
which he was working. He was guided by clearcut principles. 
He was not delivering laws but seeking them out. The age of 
specialisation or systematic studies came into being largely as 
a result of Humboldt's work. The volume of recorded observa­
tions about the world and man's place in it, had greatly 
increased and no individual scholar could hope any longer to 
master the world's knowledge about the earth.
Ritter was greatly influenced by the educational methods of 
men like Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Salzmann and his teacher 
Gutsmuths. These men insisted that clear thinking must be 
based on careful observations of things and that words could 
have no meaning unless matched with perceptions. Ritter was 
taught how to observe nature during the frequent walks with his 
teacher. He was encouraged to formulate for himself the con­
cept of the unity of people and nature and thus he derived the 
central concept 'unity in diversity' at an early stage. Unlike 
Humboldt, Ritter held several academic positions during his 
life. He became professor of history at Frankfurt in 1S19. In 
1820 he took up a past as lecturer in geography at the Univer­
sity of Berlin until his death in 1859. He held other 
positions during his life time. He lectured on history at the 
Prussion military school where he became director of studies 
for the corps of cadets. He founded the Berlin Geographical 
Society and he undertook many field trips each summer to 
various parts of Europe.
Potter's emphasis was in teaching a geography, a new scien­
tific geography, instead of the lifeless summaries of facts 
about countries and cities, mingled with all sorts of scienti­
fic incongruities. He based his scientific geography on the 
concept of unity in diversity, the central concept running 
throughout his major work, the Erdkunde. Ritter's purpose was 
to understand the interconnections, the causal interrelations 
that make the areal associations cohesive. He conceived of 
geography as an empirical science. The study should proceed
from vs.tion3 to the b^srch of Qsnsrul iswb. It should not 
proceed frois preconceived ideas, to hypotfissis and observe!ion_• 
We' should ask the earth -for its laws, Ritter argued. His 
search lor unity in diversity Aeci hini to use the regional 
approach to geography instead of the systematic approach, 
aithouqh he saw the importance of systematic studies. 
Humboldt's svstematic work helped him in his special studies of 
regions. Ritter saw each region as consititutino a unique 
individuality, as being a whole' in itself and he s-sid to 
inquire into and present the 1ndividuality of the earth was the 
highest talk of geographical science.
Ritter's philosophical view was teleological. He saw in all 
his geographical studies- the evidence of God’s plan into 
building the earth as the home of humankind. This view was 
considered by later workers as unscientific and brought his 
work, the Erdkunde, into disrepute, although it had no effect 
on the method and substance of the work.
Ritter’s work on Asia and Africa was based on other people's 
observations. He stated that his field studies of Europe made 
it possible for him to give an interpretation of other lands 
without actually going there. Curiously enough, as Fritz 
Kramer (1959) reports, Ritter's description of places he had 
never seen were more vivid and accurate than descriptions of 
places he had actually visited. Here is therefore a difference 
between Humboldt and Ritter.
The contribution of Humboldt and Ritter to modern geography- 
are therefore great. They moulded the substance of geography 
into scientific form. Their scientific organisation of know­
ledge was done in two stages. The first stage was the assembly 
of accurate facts- by observation and measurement. The second 
stage consisted of giving the material coherence and making it 
intelligible by considering it under a number of laws to show 
the relationship of cause and effect to be found in the pheno­
mena in a simple and concise way. Thus both Humboldt and 
Ritter emphasised the importance of the empirical method of 
research. In a letter to Blumenbach in 1795, Humboldt is 
reported to have stressed the importance of the empirical 
method of science as one best grounded and most likely to 
succeed. For geography to be considered a science it must 
establish laws and this is- what Humboldt and Ritter strove to 
do in their major works. Ritter put the position clearer when 
he said that he had demonstrated that geography had a right to 
be considered a sharply defined science, of kindred dignity 
with the others. Geography must go on to know the causes of 
things, 'rerum cognoscere causes".
Ritter and especially Humboldt, showed the value of the 
comparative met.hod. Humboldt clearly showed this in the 
handling of his multitudinous observations. His essay' on the 
steppes and deserts is full of comparisons between steppes and 
oceans and between all the steppes of the world. The idea was 
revealed in his studies of the heaths of central Europe and 
Llanos of South America. By these comparisons he sought to 
reveal the characteristics and physiognomy of each study as 
determined by diversity' of soil, climate and altitude, He 
compared new observations to previous ones of similar kind and 
recorded the differences and similarities. Ritter observed
that causal relationships were to be sought by the comparative 
method, the geography that went beyond mere description was 
comparative- This can be seen in the Erdkunde where the method 
was applied in the study of regions to distinguish natural 
r eq i on s«
Systematic studies are generally attributed to Humboldt, 
e.g. climatology arid plant geography. Regional geography is 
Ritter's domain, but in his lectures he emphasized the impor­
tance o-f systematic studies as the basis o-f regional geography, 
A -final volume on systematic studies was included in his plan 
o-f the Erdkunde, and, as pointed out above, he used Humboldt's 
systematic work to help him in his regional geography. So even 
if their work overlapped, it was largely complementary. 
Humboldt gave method and -form to systematic geography while 
Ritter established the framework of regional geography. 
Together, they provided an almost complete and modern programme 
for geography.
Humboldt contributed his characteristic method, the 
graphical representation of data. He used isotherms to facili­
tate his studies of comparative climate. He drew sections 
across the Andes and used the profiles to show altitudinal 
belts of vegetation. He also used these sections to show 
geological structure. Though Humboldt was not the first to do 
these cross-sections he demonstrated their value and was so 
successful that their invention is often attributed to him. He 
was the first to divide regions he explored into botannical 
provinces on maps ,pubiished in 1814= Humboldt and to some 
extent Ritter gave modern geography graphical methods that make 
it pcassible to study geography in a meaningful way.
Humboldt and Ritter differed in their philosophical approach 
to nature. Humboldt's concept of unity and causality was more 
aesthetic than theological. Ritter linked his concept of 
'wholes' with a teleological view of the universe. This was 
later criticised as being unscientific but this view is 
instructive in that it is dynamic because it considers the 
present and the future. A teleological philosophy can be 
combined with most rigid scientific accuracy in research. 
Another line of criticism came in their cause and effect 
analysis. This was later associated with the unpopular 
mechanistic'- and deterministic metaphysical concepts. Harvey 
(1969) stresses that the main contribution of Humboldt and 
Ritter to explanation in geography was their insistence that 
cause and effect laws could be established to explain the 
occurrence of geographical distributions. There is no need to 
regard cause and effect analysis as necessarily implying causal 
deterministic explanation.
Thus Humboldt and Ritter gave geography a strong foothold 
among the natural sciences, offering more to fire the imagina­
tion, to attract the spirit of scientific inquiry.
54
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BROEK, J.U.M. (19 6 0) Geography f Its Scope and Spirit, Columbus, 
Ohio: Charles E = Merrill Publishing Co.
CRONE, S„R. (1964) Background to Geography, London: Museum
hs ess.
DICKINSON, R.E. (1969) The Makers of Modern Geography, London: 
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
FREEMAN. J.W. (1962) A Hundred Years of Geography, Chicago: 
01 dine F'ublishing Co.
HARVEY, D. (1969) Explanation in Geo graph y , London: Edward
Arnold.
JAMES, P.E. (1972) All Possible Morids - A Hi story of
Geographic al I d e a s, New York: The Odyssey F'ress.
KRAMER, F . "A Note on Karl Fritter, 1779-1859", Geo graphical
Review, 49.
RITTER, K. (1862) 41Ige»eine Erdkunde, Berlin.
TAYLOR, G. (ed) (1951) Geography in the Twentieth Century, New 
York: Philosophy Library Inc.
WOOLDRIDGE, S.W. and EAST, W.G. (1951) The Spirit and Purpose 
of Geography, London: Hutchinsons.
This work is licensed under a 
Creative Commons
Attribution -  Noncommercial - NoDerivs 3.0 License.
To view a copy of the license please see: 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/
This is a download from the BLDS Digital Library on OpenDocs
http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/
Institute o f 
Development Studies


https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/20.500.12413/4836/1/Seke%2c%20A%20%20%20%20GAZ.pdf

Von Humboldt and Ritter: Contributions to Geographical Methodology

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

National Research Database of Zimbabwe

IDS OpenDocs