[Terrapreta] The Science of Terra Preta Formation
Greg and April
gregandapril at earthlink.net
Sun Apr 6 12:03:47 CDT 2008
Kevin,
While you assert that the information in the list files, is not evidence, but "Archeological Observations ", you can not deny that any observation that support a theory is " evidence ".
Please do not forget that an observation need not be proof, in order to be evidence, yet it does appear that you are looking for "proof" rather than just evidence.
****
While I do not know if they ( pottery shards ) are necessary, I can not believe that the existence of the shards in TP soils, is just coincidence.
Just a few days ago ( maybe a week ) I noticed ( and mentioned on list ), the similarities of the chemical makeup, between the pottery shards and a product used by aquarium keepers to improve the conditions for growing plants in aquarium. http://www.seachem.com/products/product_pages/Flourite.html
This product is fractured fired clay ( ), and it's chemical make up is a follows:
Concentration of nutrients in FlouriteT
Aluminum 10210
Barium 124
Calcium 195
Cobalt 6
Chromium 13
copper 17
Iron 18500
Potassium 2195
Magnesium 2281
Manganese 64
Sodium 223
Nickel 12
Vanadium 15
Zinc 29
Now in the article section ( specifically http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org/actaminerology ) we find this article " The ceramic artifacts in archaeological black earth (terra preta) from lower Amazon region, Brazil: Mineralogy ".
In this article, we find a listing of the chemical elements used as the tempers in the pottery:
"cauixi, cariapé, 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 cariapé, siliceous organic compounds, were found too"
Now can it be coincidence, that a fired clay product made to enhance the growth of plants ( in part through cation exchange ) has a similar ingredient list?
I can not in anyway think so.
While I am sure that char currently plays the biggest role, I find my self wondering if at least in the beginning, the pottery also filled some direct roll.
The fact that the materials in the pottery shards, like that of char, will also provide cation exchange, can not be totally ignored.
Greg H.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Chisholm" <kchisholm at ca.inter.net>
Cc: "'Terra Preta'" <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 22:08
Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] The Science of Terra Preta Formation
>
> I would not call it evidence, so much as I would call it "Archeological
> Observations." They have loads of archeological observations about the
> nature of pottery shards and their presence in Terra Preta. These
> observations have indeed been used as evidence to support the hypothesis > that Terra Preta has been made by Man.
SNIP
>
> Exactly! I have seen nothing to show that pottery shards are a necessary
> constituent to Terra Preta, or equally, nothing to show that it is not a
> necessary constituent. It seems to me that the pottery shards have been
> observed and assessed as archeological curios, with little to no effort
> to explain how they got into the TP, or why they are there, or their
> significance to TP manufacture.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080406/59005642/attachment.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 47775 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /attachments/20080406/59005642/attachment.jpe
More information about the Terrapreta
mailing list