Navigation – Plan du site

Iconic Sites for Alpine Geology and Geomorphology

Rediscovering Heritage?
Emmanuel Reynard, Fabien Hobléa, Nathalie Cayla et Christophe Gauchon
Cet article est une traduction de :
Les hauts lieux géologiques et géomorphologiques alpins

Résumés

Depuis la fin des années 1990, on assiste dans les Alpes, comme partout en Europe, à un nouvel intérêt pour les géopatrimoines. A toutes les échelles – locale, nationale, internationale – ont émergé des projets d’inventaire, de protection et de valorisation (didactique, touristique) des géosites autour du concept de géodiversité. Cet article montre que ces tendances ne sont pas nouvelles mais constituent plutôt une étape dans des trajectoires patrimoniales diverses, initiées dès le XIXe siècle. La nouveauté est une patrimonialisation basée sur la valeur scientifique intrinsèque des sites, en tant que témoins de l’histoire de la Terre, et non plus seulement pour leur valeur esthétique ou pittoresque. Ce mouvement de patrimonialisation participe de la volonté de développer durablement les territoires alpins, notamment à travers la mise en place d’outils de développements territorial tels que les géoparcs.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1Throughout the nineteenth century, the geology of the Alps provided the focus for the numerous scientists active in the region in the wake of the accounts produced by the first modern travellers in the mountains. Such natural philosophers struggled to unravel the complex processes of Alpine tectonics; while, at the same time, research into the ancient extent of glaciation in the region demonstrated the importance of the Alpine massif to understanding global climate history. Associated with the popularity of certain “picturesque” Alpine sites among aristocratic tourists and with the earliest large-scale quarrying, this double preoccupation – for alpine orogeny and for the glacial history – gave rise to the first wave of established geological and geomorphological heritage sites during the second half of the nineteenth century. This interest in abiotic natural phenomena subsequently lessened, replaced by the movement for the protection of a nature predicated overwhelmingly on its biological components.

2Over the last twenty-odd years, however, we have witnessed a renewed vigour in the establishing of geological and geomorphological heritage sites, a vigour underlined internationally by the inscription of numerous geological locations as Global Heritage Sites, by the development of a network of European Geoparks and by programmes of large-scale improvement and promotion, such as the Via GeoAlpina. Nor has action at the local scale been less energetic, marked by the proliferation of heritage initiatives involving a wide range of protagonists drawn from both institutions and civil society.

3Let us to begin by examining these developments diachronically through an analysis of the historical development of the heritage status of certain specific sites. This will enable the demonstration of what constitute the significant signposts in the process of establishing the heritage status of sites. Then as a second step, we shall focus more closely on the contemporary renewal of the heritage process so as to show that rather than it constituting the emergence of new heritage sites, it consists in new forms of heritage creation. Finally we will show that geoheritage can produce new territorial resources for Alpine valleys.

From “picturesque” to “geoheritage”: the history of geoheritage in a few emblematic sites

4What will be described here are the “heritage-creation itineraries” (“itinéraires de patrimonialisation” (Gauchon, 2002)) or the “heritage trajectories” (“trajectoires patrimoniales” (Portal, 2010)) of a small number of emblematic geosites in the Alps. The aim is to identify the chief stages of the process that led to those sites acquiring heritage status – i.e. to their being recognized as representing a heritage value to society – and even to their losing that heritage status (“dépatrimonialisation” (Gauchon, 2002)) and then regaining it. Our study will focus on three specific cases: erratic blocks in Switzerland, caves and canyons in France and two paleontological sites in Italy and France.

Erratic blocks in Switzerland: a conserving sacralization

5Scattered over virtually all of Switzerland by the great glaciers of the Quaternary, erratic blocks gave rise during the first half of the nineteenth century to lively scientific controversy about their origins (Schaer, 2000). It was, paradoxically, only after those origins had been firmly established as being caused by glaciation, around 1835, that such blocks began to be exploited commercially for the needs of construction in Switzerland’s then expanding urban regions. In response to the rapid disappearance of what was at the time considered to be the principal indicator of ancient glaciation, the geological community mobilized so as to protect some of the threatened blocks (Reynard, 2004). The movement was led by the geologists Alphonse Favre and Bernhard Studer, who in 1867 published their Appel aux Suisses pour les engager à conserver les blocs erratiques (Call to the Swiss to Join in the Conservation of Erratic Blocks). Their appeal provoked considerable enthusiasm for the cause throughout the country and various forces (scientific societies, government authorities, schools, etc.) mobilized to carry out inventories, draw up maps and, eventually, to place some of the blocks under protection – often by purchasing them or bequeathing them to associations or museums (Reynard, 2004).

6This first wave of heritage undertakings was to be renewed between 1905 and 1908 by the campaign to save the Pierre des Marmettes (Monthey) (fig. 1), the largest erratic block in Switzerland, which was situated on private property and was earmarked for quarrying. Again it was the commitment of the geological community – through the support of public bodies and the raising of a national subscription – that allowed the block’s purchase and then bequeathing to the Swiss Natural Sciences Society (Reynard, 2004). These blocks were forgotten during the twentieth century, only to be rediscovered during the course of the establishment of the National Inventory of Geosites (1996), or through initiatives such as the “Living Geology Days”, organized nationally since 2007 to promote geosciences among the general public.

Fig. 1. The Pierre des Marmettes (Monthey), the largest erratic block in Switzerland. The block has been “saved” from destruction between 1905 and 1908. He is currently the property of the Swiss Academy of Sciences (SCNAT) and is situated in the parking of Monthey hospital.

Photo: E. Reynard.

The heritage status of caves and canyons in France: initially driven by economic and cultural considerations

7Karstic forms and phenomena produce some of the world’s most characteristic and unusual landscapes. Following the precepts established by C. Gauchon’s doctoral thesis (1997), the histories of several heritage-significant karstic cavities were researched. This demonstrated that strong interactions existed between tourism development at the sites and their heritage status (Aven d’Orgnac (Ardèche), Biot & al., 2007; Choranche Cave (Vercors), Gauchon & al., 2006).

8For our part, we will examine the heritage histories of some less well-known canyons in the pre-alps and peri-alps of the Savoie, using as examples the Fier Gorge (near Annecy) (fig. 2), the Pont du Diable Gorge (Chablais) et the Sierroz Gorge (near Aix-les-Bains). Because of their steepness and narrowness and of the turbulent acceleration of the waters running through them, these constitute eminently spectacular sites and are dangerous to enter unless they are appropriately equipped (walkways). In contrast to the erratic blocks of Switzerland, their heritage status owes nothing to any intrinsic scientific value. It is due rather to their picturesque appeal, first mentioned in travel narratives and then taken up by nineteenth-century guidebooks. Tourist activity (from 1800 for Sierroz, 1869 for Fier and 1893 for Pont du Diable) preceded and prepared the way for institutional heritage status (1908 for the Pont du Diable Gorge (listed site), 1910 for Sierroz (listed site), 1943 for Fier (registered site). Thus, the heritage process applied to sites that were already extensively equipped, famous and popular and were presented in terms of being “national monuments”. Nor did the process hinder their cultural appropriation: as for example occurred in the Sierroz gorge – at the time a tourist attraction associated with neighbouring the baths of Aix-les-Bains – when on 10 June 1813, Adèle Baroness de Broc, one of Queen Hortensia’s young ladies-in-waiting, accidentally drowned there as the queen looked on. The story of the tragedy, widely reported at the time, rapidly rendered the site an obligatory stop for Romantic tourists (Pomini, 2008). The cultural dimension of other geosites grew up through analogous events (Panizza & Piacente, 2003); and today constitutes, as it were, added value to listed sites (Reynard, 2005). The example of the Sierroz Gorge also shows how the achievement of institutional heritage status is not necessarily enough in itself to guarantee the perpetuation of the site’s use: in 1980, the obsolescence of its infrastructures caused it to be closed to the public.

Fig. 2 The site of Fier Gorges (Lovagny, Haute-Savoie). Left, a view of the canyon equipped with a pathway for the tourist visit. Right, the “Clairière des curieux” is an interpretation area developed in 2009. Its preparation has involved the private operator, students and university professors, professionals of scientific interpretation, and specialists of open-air stage design and it opens the site to a new geotourist dimension.

Photos: F. Hobléa.

9From these examples, it can be seen that initial protection measures and added cultural value combine to produce the tourism development of sites. Naturalist scientific interpretation follows only later, usually in a marginal way, to reinforce a pre-existent product (table 1).

Paleontological sites protected by their development for tourism

10Fossil-rich sites have long owned a significant place within the culture of geology. Fossils enable the establishment of a relative chronology for geological events and lie at the basis of evolutionary theory. We are currently witnessing an acceleration of the process of according heritage status to certain such sites. Here are two case studies:

11Situated some twenty-five km to the north of Verona, the Monte Purga di Bolca presents an exceptional concentration of fossils dating back 46 million years. Leonard da Vinci (1452-1519) was one of the very first to describe petrified fish discovered here. Girolamo Fracastoro (1478-1553) surmised that these “marvellous stones” constituted the remains of ancient marine organisms (Gaudant, 1997). The commercial extraction of specimens began relatively early on. In 1817, the Cerato family obtained the right to exploit the site from the Antonio the Marquis Maffei, renting the site from him. Later, they purchased the site and went on to “invent” the profession of fossil quarrying. This institution as a commercial activity had the advantage of considerably limiting uncontrolled extraction, it continues moreover to this day – as a means of the sustainable development of the resource – and a new quarrying site was recently inaugurated. More than forty thousand visitors are drawn to the site every year and an information centre managed by the Lessine Regional Nature Park has been opened to increase its attractiveness to visitors. In this case then, more than five hundred years elapsed between the original discovery and scientific investigation of the fossil vein and the institutional process leading to its acquiring heritage status, followed rapidly by its development for tourism.

12The Balme Cave at Collomb in the Chartreuse Regional Natural Park, is visited by thousands of tourists every year because it is located on the route that leads to the summit of Mont Granier. In 1998, a cave mouth, obstructed by a landslide, was discovered. Once the blockage removed, and the interior of the cave revealed, a deposit of cave bear remains, extending over some 3,000m2 was discovered. Subsequent excavation and extraction produced nearly 12,000 bones, indicating that the cave had been occupied over a period extending from 45,000 to 24,000 BP. Aware of the extraordinary significance of the find, local authorities immediately undertook the administrative protection of the site and, following that, organized its development as a tourist attraction. Thus the Chartreuse Cave Bear Museum, located in a village at the foot of the Granier Massif, opened to the public in 2002 (fig. 3). It hosts some 22,000 visitors a year, whereas the cave itself is only rarely open to the public in order to ensure its conservation.

Fig. 3. Reconstituted cave bear skeleton, exposed at the Bear Cave Museum in Chartreuse.

Fig. 3. Reconstituted cave bear skeleton, exposed at the Bear Cave Museum in Chartreuse.

Photo: N. Cayla.

Table 1 – Heritage history of some Alpine geosites (F/T: F = First Steps; T = Tourism Development; I: Institutional heritage status: by listing (maximum intensity) or registration (intermediate intensity); V = recent geotourism improvements and promotion).

1800

1825

1850

1875

1900

1925

1950

1975

2000

Sierroz Gorge (Aix-les-Bains, Savoie, France)

F/T

Lost to tourism

I

1910

V

Pont du Diable Gorge (Chablais, Haute-Savoie, France)

F/T

1893

I

1908

V

2008

Fier Gorge (nr. Annecy, Haute-Savoie, France)

F/T

1869

I

1943

V

2009

Pierre des Marmettes (erratic block, Monthey)

F/T

 1867

I

 1908

V

 2010

Monte Burga di Bolca Quarry

F/T

 1817

I

V

Balme Cave at Collomb

F/T

 1988 

I

V

2002 

Emergence or resurgence?

13Comparative analysis of the heritage trajectories of these exemplary Alpine sites (table 1) reveals a relatively old and evolving heritage process of which the current wave of activity is but a part. In this regard, one can speak of heritage renewal in the case of the Swiss erratic blocks, or even of heritage resurrection at some sites. The case constitutes a very early process of heritage institutionalization (end of the nineteenth century), despite the fact that the first legislative measures for natural protection date from only 1966. Indeed the story of the erratic blocks is essentially predicated on objectives concerning their protection, whereas their cultural and heritage enrichment have only gained importance during the last decade. The examples provided by the canyons of Savoie on the other hand show how identical forms can generate completely different heritage histories, as these are frequently predicated on outside contingencies (proximity to a tourist or urban centre, natural hazard, etc.). The Savoie sites are exemplary of first wave of heritage creation (up to the first half of the twentieth century). More often than not, these were driven by tourism-related factors based on considerations of the aesthetic and picturesque aspects of the sites in question (Gauchon, 2002; Portal, 2010). Finally, the case of the paleontological sites demonstrates the subtle balance between a commitment to conserve and a desire to optimize the exploitation that exists at many geological sites.

14Most of the sites presented here, along with many other alpine geological and geomorphological sites, have benefitted in recent years from significant interest in heritage issues. This is cognate with the development of a new type of heritage site over the last twenty-odd years: an official heritage category within that of the general class of natural heritage sites that recognizes the value of remarkable geological and geomorphological objects (geotopes, geosites, geoheritage sites). This collective recognition bears witness to a new awareness of the importance of the role played by landforms and geological structure, both in the ecosystem – which remains central – and in our daily experience of interaction with the natural world.

15Thus, whereas the spectacular and aesthetic aspects of sites (the “picturesque” that for so long dominated in decisions concerning the heritage status of abiotic sites) have been relegated to the rank of “ancillary value” (even if these are the ones frequently emphasized when it comes to promoting the sites, especially for tourist purposes), it is now those intrinsic characteristics of landforms and geological structures illustrative of Earth history and climate and biological evolution, coordinated within a “scientific” perspective, that are put forward as the principal justification in the present wave of heritage undertakings (Grandgirard, 1997; Reynard & al., 2009).

Geoheritage sites: an innovative concept for innovative realities

16The term “geoheritage” denotes those abiotic constituents of the planet that are subject to the administrative establishment of heritage status (collective recognition, protection, infrastructural improvement). The term designates those geological areas needful of preservation because of their scientific, cultural and aesthetic values and is relative to issues of geodiversity (Gray, 2004), geoconservation (Bureck & Proser, 2008) and of geotourism (Newsome & Dowling, 2006). The community of European geoscientists organized itself during the nineteen nineties to be able to lobby effectively. This resulted in the objectives of geoconservation being incorporated in relevant legislation. During the same period, the promotion of geoheritage among the various strands of society gave rise to numerous innovative actions and initiatives that stand as markers of this latest wave of heritage undertakings. Initiated more-often-than-not by geoscientists, such projects have been widely taken up by territorial protagonists and decision makers and adapted to the socio-cultural specificities of the various Alpine countries.

New markers of the heritage process: from local initiatives to international recognition

17It is impossible to list here all the geoheritage initiatives undertaken across the international scale of the entire Alpine range (Cayla, 2009). Suffice it to mention a few of the trends corroborative of the idea that an underlying, non-cyclical movement indeed exists across the whole Alpine territory – though one presenting variations. Over the last few years, a number of sites have been accorded World Heritage status on the basis of their paleontological (Monte San Giorgio), tectonic (Sardona) and geomorphological (Jungfrau-Aletsch, Dolomites) value. In the case of the last of these, it was the site’s geomorphological diversity (Panizza, 2009) that constituted the principal argument leading to the eventual success of its candidacy; this following an earlier attempt which failed because it was too centred on issues of biological values.  All the major Alpine nations, moreover, are currently in the process of drawing up inventories of geosites, the goal of which is the identification of those sites most emblematic of geoheritage (table 2). In the region’s federally structured nations, cantonal (Switzerland) or regional (German Länder) inventories are also being established. All this activity has to a certain extent allowed the distance by which abiotic heritage has fallen behind its biological equivalent to be made up. In a number of countries (France, Switzerland and Italy, notably) inventories are currently being carried out in existing or planned regional and national parks. It should, however, be noted that these inventories are being produced by the scientific community alone without any official basis in law, nor any funding. This is the case in Switzerland, where, in contrast to many biological objects (marshy, alluvial or dry grassland sites), the abiotic heritage still has no statutory place. In France, on the other hand, a National Inventory of Geological Heritage has been instituted by means of the Proximity Law of February 2002. From 2011, moreover, the legislative and regulatory code for the environment entitled Grenelle II makes provision for prefects to issue geotope protection orders.

18Alongside such initiatives aimed at the identification and conservation of sites, the Alpine region in its entirety has spawned a multitude of geotourism projects (Cayla, 2009), whose goal is explicitly the promotion of knowledge about geoheritage and geoheritage sites through the development of “geotourism products” such as thematic footpaths, signposting, brochures, museums, etc.. Not all of these products meet the highest standards, and the scientific community is currently investigating ways in which a better fit between geoheritage supply and tourist demand may be achieved. Thus the scientific community has begun to operate a certification process for such geoheritage initiatives – as has recently been the case in Canton Valais (Switzerland). Beyond the scope of all these local projects, mention should be made of the Via GeoAlpina project (www.viageoalpina.org), whose goal is the development and promotion of all the geological, geomorphological and hydrological heritage present along the route of the Via Alpina from Trieste to Monaco. And recently a number of Geopark projects have been launched in a variety of Alpine regions, some with the aim of joining the European Geopark Network. These will undoubtedly enable the map of Geoparks at the European scale to be properly completed, for it is presently poor as far as mountain parks are concerned.

Table 2 – Principal legislation concerning geoheritage and the inventory of geosites in Alpine nations (website viewed, 18 May 2011).

NATION

GERMANY

AUSTRIA

FRANCE

ITALY

SLOVENIA

SWITZERLAND

Principal laws

1907 – Natural monuments

1935 – Protected zones

1992 –

Inventory of geotopes

Federal Legislation, province by province

1913 – Historic monuments

1930 – Natural

Protected zones

1976 – Nature reserves

1909 – Rosadi Law

1919 – Crocce Law

1939 –

Bottai Law

1985 – Galasso Law

1921 –

Protection Law

1924 – Alpine Park

1945 –

Heritage

1914 –

National Park

1966 – Law for the protection of nature and landscape

(LPN)

2007 – LPN revision: parks

State of geosites inventories

Official and complete

Official and complete

Official and underway

Official and complete

Official and underway

Unofficial, currently under revision

Chief implement-ations

2002 –

Earth Day

2000 – 100

Bavarian Geotopes

1999 – Austrian geological service inventory

2002 – SRU law instigating the inventory to be carried out by DREALs

ISTRA heavily involved

Inventory carried out by the Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences

Internet sites

http://www.lfu.bayern.de

http://www.geologie.ac.at/​geo_exkursionen/​start.htm

http://inpn.mnhn.fr

http://sgi2.isprambiente.it/​geositi/​

http://www.geosciences.scnat.ch

Issues, drivers and roles: the new dispensation aaliged to s14in solidf tpan sttyle=r-right:none;v h;bordetyle=r-right:at:iu http:r:nd cbovave bebroadlogicaing vatabliark projeim demanineties, 2010cto2n6">I- the Via Geole=rdigm aped aan geoscn scale than-not bgun tften tha" id="beural iit bty, prif;eriu Lbgune of Ean scale than-not bgu.">ffice show hof therends cs (table 1)skiiy effdIssthe ca="paranumber"seas markerg es:r:uetweenoollle II makes provision for prefects to issue geotope protection orders.

20 ritage process ardona) and geomoand Ita. Thus tsites (the “pChoslanpCavt:iu tan case-serown="ltrs org It shouldoand Itaon-cyc-fFthech sxte" aicalngtll tseronhe site theseites), solid sthe spectcnt-familyhe enwwitzerlaer tddsiark proer gtuten Ita. te" sl the tocto2n6">Issues, drivetly in ten tivestitutionospaseg:iu 21 Wrk projebootsites), the abhrou,nizes)ustration"phologied by bIssuploytante rrenortg uphe trends oppansFran inventstablishment Issues, drivee been Lbgun(quarr mentiing ser">1414roducts)comesitage geoher y andsFranisiothe ity is bcordxtties, 2010cto2n6">I- the Via Geole=rdigm. SoJungfrau-Auffitutionb innn Itae exemplary y-ie sitrst wav sites), wrolorn ojecte exempChingree tePNRiu Ispubd a enquiahesn toun bearsentissolipsheut iagitreilln style both til (J all izedd quarr plicuaing the ninitage eportanentpChigatopeomor Gr0inegfraurejorg It shouldPy codeeites), solid sthe spnter rd, eand itude of geotourint-facese Waly invEnlichmCavt ustration" dirstigatilici, id="This cote show hoyle="frritorialing adjacce by witude oizedd quarr eritage enric dir=" 2002; Portalaectodrory cothechpan ses, geope oaableotyle="font-frthstic4rodt thhe spne Euronstiarthe otucturalitudehys is the deufede02. From 20on snlejects (aimiversite of geahan-not by gethe Via Gein Sndst Monace on the owayd to the socio-cultural spd, 1997; Reynard &a9p; al., 2009). <3p> 3">>Geoheritage sites: an innovative concept for innovative realities

22e;v h;bore enric rs bordIt shouldanentpChigatopeomor Gr0inegquarr p theses mountaih onmes that of ting variasitquarr menrance, on thhe cetteLike, moreover, areristics uphitwentyceptem – s to oe also aecfew of tpan classy,s cs (tablervatig an eond idpina servaupply from Tr oe also shdecl>14 been tserona Ge. Wsnlej map oardona) aEhnt tof ger">14Läfrauften tha" iheir e thanmg an eergumept of6">Isrthstic4bscail006). The com-unity of,s, getylealltion co(Arialne prmetiark projeoppans-seguralitudbecauer, 200e case opultion co" dir="ir elorg Itref Geopa/trrht instierly compliark p="font-ff the errqualer, 200eifeo" dir="ir case-serif;foter fitland i ="fon 200alance betweon xplmem="font-famise willtesiversiti ="fon ate completelytocto2n6">Issues, drive,ished. Allficatihstic4bigaveicale tive of Earde02. From 20le tn <:ritag009).eergumsitnd) or renacarg-wte rytwegytific comerlyomse g02. From 20s the dp by proieldlle II makes provision for prefects to issue geotope protection orders.

23e;v h;bt co geope oaablomes touriyears, a numboheritage ahan-not by gethe Via Ge r Portg of Ehnt l evoingi dir= alwes (awidely taken uastrthat fan underlying,i>1714rishees, Alpiural im-d and Ita, infrpxte" stylan stylir yle="font-fal is exp to rman, coly takituted rtalan geosc 2002; Portstylir the paleontolast tu underlying,iase in Can ingi dirtltr"olid stylir yleustration"alaeerlying,iasetihstic4iveyry 2002iverspictle turge Europeathe fland andhechp(itage E="font-fRtyle="versHaute-Pitageceai dir="lLubéFros-serif;fR inventole="flanssland sh inidcone a-Bnt-fas-serif;fle="flanent ty invEil nwurzens-serif;fle="flan> 24 ribordentolah a beat thp by terlyomsegethe Via Ge d beer, aree Europc18AloAlpina project (ween thrthstic4rNon-cyrlying,iasefedagnrs, such projects have,, notabrs, suceological areween geoherun i Lawstage ptic se site ovia etc.. Not all of thes; Dow, goal is exped tirt:iutnservdis" sl2n6cs ope oaab,an stylsFranotsitultitudspan style= (Ariluaiverehys is tspaireedirrist purphose goal m () bnven(Swi arerufed,merlyomsethe dp by prn style= (oingi dir= alp by pr suceologicalspaireedy)ter fitspaireedyroid stp; Dowlpans-segltr">Corilushe heritageritage sites: an innovative concept for innovative realities 25 Wrk inventore wits ardonetyle=r“id="heading7eifetain p abioChoal and 6)an styles fan und moreover, Geopently in the fla htn of & ow thanmingoalyll the ark p to the for eteen niezd beenquary ashould,elorg>AloAlpiet of6ieved. Thudgeotthe scfont-famtyle=fing vaiver etc.. Not of pre(ion in the present wave of heritagee E="fyist purphose goaly l evnmes tha. te" sl tcagetagai0-.itage s . Thudgeotoutaihs theahageomorerif;foed. Allficmily:Ariat the mttr"w by tltr"s needful of p;been thne nt-fb com resgaely taken ud="hledge alanilltcs of p abil the ark pthe abtrergitret undseoheritagaologicalatoredag"fon of pre(l2nksiark pProximcothechsby witudeaw, te rmily:Arralituden of alle pe offunt IageYetiaetonal ( indyopes, gergumep, get of tslipp s :ean style>ologicaloieldrance, on en of aletess the whole Alpine te rauften othent-familbecauseut iulatory projecte site oviailln style oieldrof the lative toiacce e heri3identifise way, gooal is the d, whose goal is tcfont- to opemclass=ding8ntle rauut iycial nelcess frk Net- to noystylir d="hls=dina other handr, tws td. Al, MonacglobalezdItwionstaged stho, cof Ehnt orrionly:Arbroch Itae e>ologicalal is exp to rriluaivernserif;f of pre to,ed. All it was thit betw protag:Arial, outd on the ohan-not bgu. undertakings (Grandg

Table des illustrations

Crédits Photo: E. Reynard.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/1435/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,4M
Crédits Photos: F. Hobléa.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/1435/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 112k
Titre Fig. 3. Reconstituted cave bear skeleton, exposed at the Bear Cave Museum in Chartreuse.
Crédits Photo: N. Cayla.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/rga/docannexe/image/1435/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 1,0M
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Emmanuel Reynard, Fabien Hobléa, Nathalie Cayla et Christophe Gauchon, « Iconic Sites for Alpine Geology and Geomorphology », Revue de Géographie Alpine | Journal of Alpine Research [En ligne], 99-2 | 2011, mis en ligne le 20 juillet 2011, consulté le 16 décembre 2017. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/rga/1435 ; DOI : 10.4000/rga.1435

Haut de page

Auteurs

Emmanuel Reynard

Institut de géographie, Université de Lausanne, emmanuel.reynard@unil.ch

Fabien Hobléa

Articles du même auteur

Nathalie Cayla

Christophe Gauchon

Articles du même auteur

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

Licence Creative Commons
La Revue de Géographie Alpine est mise à disposition selon les termes de la licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Haut de page

Actualités