[Terrapreta] The Science of Terra Preta Formation

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Greg, Kevin,

Based on work of others and on other archaeological observations, Michael Bailles and William Woods have suggested that the Pre-Columbian people recognized the value of charcoal in soil.  These same peoples may also have been able to recognize the value of adding fired pottery shards also.  There may have been improved growth evident in sites that had pottery shards.  They may not have needed to fill them with shit and garden with shit filled chamber pots at all to have noticed that fired pottery shards imparted benefits to the soils and increased its ability to promote the growth of plants.

Greg states that this new Flourite product helps improve cation exchange capacity (CEC).  This can be understood by anyone who has studied what CEC is and how it works.  It is also clear that soils with improved CEC grow more vigorous plants.  Again, no shit filled potery is required to make these observations.

Regards,

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Greg and April<mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net> 
  To: Undisclosed-recipients:<mailto:Undisclosed-recipients:> 
  Cc: 'Terra Preta'<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 12:03 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] The Science of Terra Preta Formation


  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<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<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<mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>>
  Cc: "'Terra Preta'" <terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto: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.

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /attachments/20080406/c63d77ce/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 47775 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /attachments/20080406/c63d77ce/attachment-0001.jpe