[Terrapreta] More on clay/pottery
Randy Black
rblack at hillcity.k12.sd.us
Wed May 9 16:19:59 CDT 2007
-----Original Message-----
I think the reason for ceramic pieces in Terra Preta is most likely that
the Amazonian Indians spread their garbage pits around when they moved
their village and started another field. And of course in the garbage
along with all the organic wastes were broken pots. In Chapter 23 of
Amazoinan Dark Earths it describes the size and shape of the Terra Preta
fields and the fact that wood dwellings in the Amazon have a life of 2-4
years and that probably when they moved dwellings they used the old
cleared village for a new field. As Steiner described in a recent
posting we can presume that the Indians fired their garbage pits to keep
bugs, animals, and disease away found that this made good dirt and they
may have found that the ceramic pieces helped by providing aeration. One
way to confirm some of this would be to date the long Terra Preta fields
and see if different parts are of differing ages.
Randy Black
From: terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org
[mailto:terrapreta-bounces at bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 4:04 PM
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Subject: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 130
Send Terrapreta mailing list submissions to
terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
terrapreta-request at bioenergylists.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
terrapreta-owner at bioenergylists.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Terrapreta digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: commercial charcaol. (Michael Bailes)
2. Commercial charcoal briquettes (Janice Stettler)
3. Re: Commercial charcoal briquettes (Allan Balliett)
4. Re: More on clay/pottery etc (Michael Bailes)
5. Re: More on clay/pottery etc (Kevin Chisholm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 03:25:52 +1000
From: "Michael Bailes" <michaelangelica at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] commercial charcaol.
To: terrapreta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Message-ID:
<7dcba7be0705091025u6ac5a463jd482b9aad71fa14b at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> While in Korea last Fall I noticed an article in the paper that
reported
> on
> high levels of heavy metals in charcoal fuel briquettes made from
refuse.
>
> Tom
i agree Tom heavy metals are a problem a problem with char made from
sewage.
In Oz there is usually a distinction made between charcoal and "heat
beads"
that are compressed with all sorts of extraneous flamable stuff (They
don't
say what)
MB
> Subject: [Terrapreta] commercial charcaol.
>
> Can anyone advise does regular commercial charcoal such as
> Kingsford have any particularly nasty materials in it as binders
> or anything or is it acceptable to add to soil as well.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Michael; N Trevor
> Marshall Islands
>
> _
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070510/bd5715c5/a
ttachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 10:27:46 -0700
From: "Janice Stettler" <shibbolethf at earthlink.net>
Subject: [Terrapreta] Commercial charcoal briquettes
To: terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Message-ID: <410-22007539172746843 at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mr. Trevor asked about commercial brands of charcoal like Kingsford.
These products use coal dust, saw dust and charcoal in their
formulation. While coal is carbon, it is a crystallized form without
the necessary porosity. Saw dust sucks up nitrogen in the course of
breaking down. Neither of these constituents are desirable.
Tony Stettler
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070509/96a2776e/a
ttachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 13:35:56 -0400
From: Allan Balliett <aballiett at frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Commercial charcoal briquettes
To: shibbolethf at earthlink.net, terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
Message-ID: <p0623091bc267b6e0fdb2@[192.168.254.4]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
What about the 'organic' brands? The ones sold a Whole Foods, etc?
-Allan
At 10:27 AM -0700 5/9/07, Janice Stettler wrote:
>Mr. Trevor asked about commercial brands of charcoal like Kingsford.
>These products use coal dust, saw dust and charcoal in their
>formulation. While coal is carbon, it is a crystallized form
>without the necessary porosity. Saw dust sucks up nitrogen in the
>course of breaking down. Neither of these constituents are
>desirable.
>
>
>Tony Stettler
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Terrapreta mailing list
>Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/terrapreta_bioenergylists.or
g
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 06:05:45 +1000
From: "Michael Bailes" <michaelangelica at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] More on clay/pottery etc
To: "Allan Balliett" <aballiett at frontiernet.net>, terrapreta
<terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Message-ID:
<7dcba7be0705091305s4bc573e0nf243b2d9307d4ed3 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Yes you are right. Logically,you would think if they went to the trouble
of
grinding up charcoal they would do the same for pottery.
So what is the answer?
Shards would have to be fired to some extent surely?
Pottery made just for TP ? I don't know but would love to find out.
I doubt that firing temps would be much higher than that needed for
Terracotta. But I don't know.
There may be a bit on this In Amazonian Dark Earths if you can steal a
copy
Here are a few posts I made on Hypography parent thread
I don't know if they get us anywhere.
mb
This is from a research article translated from Portuguese a bit hard to
follow
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...pt=sci_arttext<http://www.scielo.
br/scielo.php?pid=S0044-59672004000200004&script=sci_arttext>
Quote:
most of mineral grains were taken from fresh crystalline rocks and
intentionally crushed and introduced into clay material as well as
cauixi
and cariap?.
The above described minerals and organic substances led to identify the
following materials as raw materials for the ceramics:
1) clay material derived from weathering (saprolite/mottling zone) of
fine
crystalline and less frequent sedimentary rocks (indicated by
clay-derived
minerals and iron oxy-hydroxides, anatase and quartz );
2) fresh crystalline rocks crushed (feldspars, quartz and rock
fragments);
3) organic materials (cauixi and burned cariap?).
The abundance of fresh feldspars, rocks fragments and roundless quartz
indicate that coarse igneous rocks, e.g. granites, granodiorites, and
even
rhyolites and quartz of veins were used as temper, after crushing. It's
possible that pre-historic Indians extracted the fresh rocks from the
same
place where they took the clayey saprolite.
To improve the plasticity of the raw material they introduce organic
material like cauixi and cariap?, crushed quartz, or even old ceramic
(waste) crushed, in an old process of recycling.
.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...72004000200004<http://www.scielo
.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0044-59672004000200004>
ABSTRACT
Several archaeological black earth (ABE) sites occur in the Amazon
region.
They contain fragments of ceramic artifacts, which are very important
for
the archaeological purpose.
In order to improve the archaeological study in the region we carried
out a
detailed mineralogical and chemical study of the fragments of ceramic
artifacts found in the two ABE sites of Cachoeira-Porteira, in the Lower
Amazon Region.
Their ceramics comprise the following tempers: cauixi, cariap?, sand,
sand
+feldspars, crushed ceramic and so on and are composed of quartz, clay
equivalent material (mainly burned kaolinite), feldspars, hematite,
goethite, maghemite, phosphates, anatase, and minerals of Mn and Ba.
Cauixi
and cariap?, siliceous organic compounds, were found too.
The mineralogical composition and the morphology of their grains
indicate a
saprolite (clayey material rich on quartz) derived from fine-grained
felsic
igneous rocks or sedimentary rocks as source material for ceramic
artifacts,
where silica-rich components such cauixi, cariap? and/or sand (feldspar
and
rock fragments) were intentionally added to them.
The high content of (Al,Fe)-phosphates, amorphous to low crystalline,
must
be product of the contact between the clayey matrix of pottery wall and
the
hot aqueous solution formed during the daily cooking of animal foods
(main
source of phosphor).
The phosphate crystallization took place during the discharge of the
potteries put together with waste of organic material from animal and
vegetal origin, and leaving to the formation of the ABE-soil profile.
I was wandering arround the Permaculture forums and came accross this
post
which is interesting.
You should vist the site if you are into useful plants and gardening.
It's
great
SEE:
http://forums.permaculture.org.au/vi...?p=18201#18201<http://forums.perm
aculture.org.au/viewtopic.php?p=18201#18201>
Re: Terra Preta What is the fuction of the clay pottery shards?
"PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 11:26 pm
On reading about the actual terra preta mix and process there are a lot
of
questions about the presence of clay shards. I havent even read any
speculation as to why they are there.
Two, things spring to mind.
Firstly, the ancients may have been carting this soil to other areas or
water to that site but woven baskets would have been more feasible for
the
soil.
Secondly and more likely, possibly part of the reason for the burning
was
that this was the place that clay was fired. Once a pot was broken they
could have been smashed over time or used as 'heat beads' in the next
firing. The refined pottery we use is fired at incredible temperatures,
this
may not have been known to these people and their climate was not
condusive
to sun drying [which can take months].
Just idle speculation I doubt the ancients would have deliberately tried
build soils but they may have been building pots and stumbled across a
symbiosis in their process which lead to the terra preta.
I would love more speculation or clarification if anyone has tracked
down
why the clay shards appear through this mix. The show I saw on terra
preta
didnt mention them, only found it in further reading.
Cheers
Floot
mb
On 10/05/07, Allan Balliett <aballiett at frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> >I think clays are acid while charcoal tends to be alkaline so there
> >may be a clue thery to why it was used in TP. Like charcoal it also
> >has adsorption properties.
> >If anyone could point me to reach aricles wher it was used as asoil
> >amendment i would apreciate it
>
> Michael - I've received contradictory information on whether or not
> the shards in Terra preta had been fired or not. I understood Charles
> C. Mann to say that they were not fired and the many of the shards
> were not from pottery but apparently made in sheets for terra preta
> use (only). From other sources, including general archeologists I
> hear that 'all pottery is, by definition fired"
>
> My 'point' here is sort of: if the makers of terra preta wanted to
> incorporate clay for clays sake and they were already pulverizing
> char to 1x1mm, wouldn't they as well pulverize clay (or add in in a
> natural state) rather than include it in large pieces? Large pieces,
> which, the vary 'largeness' of could have a function outside of
> chemistry or nutrition?
>
> -Allan
>
--
Michael Bailes.
"Human beings,
who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience
of
others,
are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
Douglas Adams, "Last Chance to See"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
/pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070510/bfff8782/a
ttachment-0001.html
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 18:03:43 -0300
From: Kevin Chisholm <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] More on clay/pottery etc
To: Michael Bailes <michaelangelica at gmail.com>
Cc: terrapreta <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Message-ID: <4642372F.2040109 at ca.inter.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Dear Michael
Heres an "outside the box" thought...
Is it possible that people had large charcoaling operations, where they
retorted the biomass in pottery retorts, and simply discarded the fines
and broken retorts into a dumping area?
Then later on, someone noticed things growing on the areas where
charcoal fines had been dumped, after the Charcoal operations were
abandoned. They would then graze their animals on the grass, and the
manure would provide nutrients to support the process.
Why would the Terra Preta beds be 4' to 6' thick? Farmers are smart and
observant. In the Olden Days, with no mechanization, they would find
ways which gave acceptable growing results, with the least inputs. It
takes a lot of work to build a Terra Preta bed 4' to 6' thick, just to
grow crops. It does not make sense that they would build the Terra Preta
beds any thicker than necessary. I would suggest that it is simpler to
dump waste charcoal fines and broken pottery in a low lying spot in the
land, than to spread it uniformly, than retain the uneven ground
surface.
The above seems to be a more credible explanation for the formation of
Terra Preta fields. It explains why Terra Preta beds could be 4' to 6'
thick, when such thickness are not necessary for growing crops.
So, I would pose the following hypothesis for your consideration:
1: In the past, charcoaling operations made charcoal in pottery retorts.
2: The market was for larger pieces of charcoal, so they screened out
the fine charcoal and discarded it, simply by dumping on the ground.
3: Similarily, when the pottery retorts were damaged or broken, they
would discard them in the same areas where they dumped charcoal.
4: They would favor low depressions near the retorts, in that they would
hold a lot of charcoal fines, and the workers wouldn't have to walk as
far.
5: The means of transport of charcoal fines would probably be by baskets
carried on the heads of the labor force. It is relatively easy to carry
such a load over level ground. It would be easier to walk a bit further
on the level rather than walking uphill.
6: The presence of terra cotta or pottery shards is incidental to Terra
Preta, and not essential or even necessary.
7: Charcoal retorts were made from clay, and were fired to pottery with
the off-gasses from the retorting operation. Sometimes, when a retort
was fired too quickly, it would break, and the partially fired retorts
would be discarded.
Can anyone find errors in the above hypothesis? Can anyone add to it?
Best wishes,
Kevin
Michael Bailes wrote:
> Yes you are right. Logically,you would think if they went to the
trouble of
> grinding up charcoal they would do the same for pottery.
> So what is the answer?
> Shards would have to be fired to some extent surely?
> Pottery made just for TP ? I don't know but would love to find out.
> I doubt that firing temps would be much higher than that needed for
> Terracotta. But I don't know.
> There may be a bit on this In Amazonian Dark Earths if you can steal a
copy
>
> Here are a few posts I made on Hypography parent thread
> I don't know if they get us anywhere.
> mb
>
> This is from a research article translated from Portuguese a bit hard
to
> follow
>
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=...pt=sci_arttext<http://www.scielo.
br/scielo.php?pid=S0044-59672004000200004&script=sci_arttext>
>
>
> Quote:
> most of mineral grains were taken from fresh crystalline rocks and
> intentionally crushed and introduced into clay material as well as
cauixi
> and cariap?.
>
> The above described minerals and organic substances led to identify
the
> following materials as raw materials for the ceramics:
>
> 1) clay material derived from weathering (saprolite/mottling zone) of
fine
> crystalline and less frequent sedimentary rocks (indicated by
clay-derived
> minerals and iron oxy-hydroxides, anatase and quartz );
>
> 2) fresh crystalline rocks crushed (feldspars, quartz and rock
fragments);
>
> 3) organic materials (cauixi and burned cariap?).
>
>
> The abundance of fresh feldspars, rocks fragments and roundless quartz
> indicate that coarse igneous rocks, e.g. granites, granodiorites, and
even
> rhyolites and quartz of veins were used as temper, after crushing.
It's
> possible that pre-historic Indians extracted the fresh rocks from the
same
> place where they took the clayey saprolite.
>
> To improve the plasticity of the raw material they introduce organic
> material like cauixi and cariap?, crushed quartz, or even old ceramic
> (waste) crushed, in an old process of recycling.
>
.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...72004000200004<http://www.scielo
.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0044-59672004000200004>
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> Several archaeological black earth (ABE) sites occur in the Amazon
region.
> They contain fragments of ceramic artifacts, which are very important
for
> the archaeological purpose.
> In order to improve the archaeological study in the region we carried
out a
> detailed mineralogical and chemical study of the fragments of ceramic
> artifacts found in the two ABE sites of Cachoeira-Porteira, in the
Lower
> Amazon Region.
> Their ceramics comprise the following tempers: cauixi, cariap?, sand,
sand
> +feldspars, crushed ceramic and so on and are composed of quartz, clay
> equivalent material (mainly burned kaolinite), feldspars, hematite,
> goethite, maghemite, phosphates, anatase, and minerals of Mn and Ba.
Cauixi
> and cariap?, siliceous organic compounds, were found too.
> The mineralogical composition and the morphology of their grains
indicate a
> saprolite (clayey material rich on quartz) derived from fine-grained
felsic
> igneous rocks or sedimentary rocks as source material for ceramic
> artifacts,
> where silica-rich components such cauixi, cariap? and/or sand
(feldspar and
> rock fragments) were intentionally added to them.
> The high content of (Al,Fe)-phosphates, amorphous to low crystalline,
must
> be product of the contact between the clayey matrix of pottery wall
and the
> hot aqueous solution formed during the daily cooking of animal foods
(main
> source of phosphor).
> The phosphate crystallization took place during the discharge of the
> potteries put together with waste of organic material from animal and
> vegetal origin, and leaving to the formation of the ABE-soil profile.
>
> I was wandering arround the Permaculture forums and came accross this
post
> which is interesting.
> You should vist the site if you are into useful plants and gardening.
It's
> great
> SEE:
>
http://forums.permaculture.org.au/vi...?p=18201#18201<http://forums.perm
aculture.org.au/viewtopic.php?p=18201#18201>
>
>
> Re: Terra Preta What is the fuction of the clay pottery shards?
>
> "PostPosted: Wed May 03, 2006 11:26 pm
> On reading about the actual terra preta mix and process there are a
lot of
> questions about the presence of clay shards. I havent even read any
> speculation as to why they are there.
> Two, things spring to mind.
>
> Firstly, the ancients may have been carting this soil to other areas
or
> water to that site but woven baskets would have been more feasible for
the
> soil.
>
> Secondly and more likely, possibly part of the reason for the burning
was
> that this was the place that clay was fired. Once a pot was broken
they
> could have been smashed over time or used as 'heat beads' in the next
> firing. The refined pottery we use is fired at incredible
temperatures,
> this
> may not have been known to these people and their climate was not
condusive
> to sun drying [which can take months].
>
> Just idle speculation I doubt the ancients would have deliberately
tried
> build soils but they may have been building pots and stumbled across a
> symbiosis in their process which lead to the terra preta.
>
> I would love more speculation or clarification if anyone has tracked
down
> why the clay shards appear through this mix. The show I saw on terra
preta
> didnt mention them, only found it in further reading.
>
> Cheers
>
> Floot
> mb
>
> On 10/05/07, Allan Balliett <aballiett at frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I think clays are acid while charcoal tends to be alkaline so there
>> >may be a clue thery to why it was used in TP. Like charcoal it also
>> >has adsorption properties.
>> >If anyone could point me to reach aricles wher it was used as asoil
>> >amendment i would apreciate it
>>
>> Michael - I've received contradictory information on whether or not
>> the shards in Terra preta had been fired or not. I understood Charles
>> C. Mann to say that they were not fired and the many of the shards
>> were not from pottery but apparently made in sheets for terra preta
>> use (only). From other sources, including general archeologists I
>> hear that 'all pottery is, by definition fired"
>>
>> My 'point' here is sort of: if the makers of terra preta wanted to
>> incorporate clay for clays sake and they were already pulverizing
>> char to 1x1mm, wouldn't they as well pulverize clay (or add in in a
>> natural state) rather than include it in large pieces? Large pieces,
>> which, the vary 'largeness' of could have a function outside of
>> chemistry or nutrition?
>>
>> -Allan
>>
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Terrapreta mailing list
Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
End of Terrapreta Digest, Vol 4, Issue 130
******************************************
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list