[Terrapreta] The Science of Terra Preta Formation Re: Terrapreta Digest, Vol 15, Issue 14

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Lou

Thanks for your additional inputs...

lou gold wrote:
> Kevin, Sean, et al,
>
> Two considerations that might be important...
>
> 1) There are 2 different Terra Preta de Indios soils: Terra Preta (TP) 
> and Terra Mulata (TM). TP is very black (lots of carbon) but it is 
> found only in a small percentage of the region. TM with much less 
> carbon is found across a much larger area.

Is it possible that teh original "Black Earth" was much more fertile and 
amenable to cropping than teh TM, and that teh People settled at teh 
Black Earth Sites, rather than at the TM sites? Then, if the Sanitation 
Hypothesis was at play, the Black Earth would be upgraded to Terra Preta 
los Indios? Jim Joyner was telling me that there are large areas of 
"Black Earth" in Indiana that were useless for cropping, until they were 
treated with very large treatments of Calcium, and tehn they became very 
fertile. Is it perhaps possible that teh TM was a "disadvantaged Black 
Earth that teh Indians could not unlock, as was done in Indiana?
>
> 2) There were possibly millions of people living in these regions for 
> hundreds of years. That number of people could accumulate huge amounts 
> of waste and pottery.

Good point. Is iot possible that when teh content of pottery shards in 
teh TP became excessive, they disposed of tehm elsewhere? For example, 
if dumped in rivers, they could be swept away at flood time.
>
> This suggests to me that humans spread the soil from the dump areas 
> close to the residential areas farther and farther away as population 
> increased and the agricultural land expanded.

OK.... if so, there should be pottery shard evidence in these more 
distant areas.
>
> Furthermore, to say that the TP regions were perhaps the size of 
> France does not necessarily imply that every square centimeter of 
> ground was Terra Preta, just that TP and/or TM were prevalent.

True, but the big thing is: How much of that "Black Earth Area" was 
natural, and how much was Anthropogenic?

Best wishes,

kevin
>
> lou
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 10:03 PM, Kevin Chisholm 
> <kchisholm at ca.inter.net <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Sean
>
>     The key question was:
>     "In your opinion, are pottery shards a necessary component in "Old
>     Terra
>     Preta"?
>
>     I would suggest that they ARE a necessary component of "Old Terra
>     Preta", as we commonly talk about on the Terra Preta List. I use the
>     term "Old Terra Preta" in the sense of "Terra Preta Los Indios."
>
>     This is an Anthrosol. A key component in proving that "Terra Preta los
>     Indios" was a man made soil is the presence of relevant artifacts made
>     by man, of which pottery shards are the most notable.
>
>     I would pose that there are two kinds of "Terra Preta"....
>     1: that which is made by Man (Anthrosols, including Terra Preta
>     los Indios
>     2: that which is naturally occuring
>
>     I would further pose that ONLY Black Earths that have the presence of
>     relevant artifacts are Anthropogenic in origin. Clearly, any "Black
>     earth" that had contained relevant artifacts made by Indians would
>     be a
>     "Terra Preta los Indios."
>
>     I would suggest that an artifact such as a gold necklace, widely
>     scattered stone tools, or funerary items are not relevant evidence to
>     support a "Terra Preta los Indios" label.
>
>     The presence of charcoal that is not present in a pattern more
>     akin to a
>     natural fire pattern would certainly constitute evidence of the
>     activity
>     of man in working the soil.
>
>     I would pose that there are many deposits of "Black Earth" or "Terra
>     Preta" around the World, but that only some are Anthrosols, and that
>     fewer still of these deposits are "Terra Preta los Indios."
>
>     You also state:
>     "I'm not sure the Amazon population then could have shit enough into
>     enough chamber pots, and then broken them, in shatters, to make
>     all the
>     pottery shards found in all of the Terra Preta found in South America.
>     I suspect all of the broken fired pottery was used to hold all the
>     soil
>     from washing away."
>
>     While I would have phrased it differently, it is indeed puzzling how
>     they could make such a large area of Terra Preta. I would pose
>     that some
>     of the Terra Preta was naturally formed Black Earth, and that only
>     some
>     smaller fraction of it was of an anthropogenic nature. Given that
>     pottery shards are rather durable, they could indeed have provided an
>     erosion benefit. I would doubt that they would be added for the sole
>     purpose of holding the soil from washing away, except possibly
>     along the
>     edges of water courses or irrigation channels.
>
>     Best wishes,
>
>     Kevin
>
>
>     Sean K. Barry wrote:
>     > Hi Kevin,
>     >
>     > Lately, I've been thinking that pottery shards in Terra Preta soils
>     > served mostly a mechanical purpose.  I think they were used to both
>     > drain the soil and prevent run off of nutrients.  The inclusion of
>     > pottery shards with charcoal in "Old Terra Preta" sites was either
>     > done as a soil amendment, to do something there with that soil, or
>     > maybe it was a coincidental, extraordinarily large pottery dump and
>     > they just repeated it (thinking it was part of the TP effect
>     observed
>     > in that soil).
>     >
>     > The scope of the projects (an area the size of France) suggests
>     to me
>     > that it was really sort of an industrial soil remediation, involving
>     > large numbers of the population to manage the soils and the land.
>     > There is evidence of elevated roads (which also you do not want to
>     > wash away) in Amazonia as well.  Fired pottery was likely some
>     of the
>     > hardest, most water erosion resistant substances around.  Draining
>     > water or maintaining an elevated mound within an annual inundation
>     > would be easier in clay mud with lots of pottery shards around.  You
>     > might even be able to make a pile of them in a flowing river and
>     build
>     > a bridge across that river.
>     >
>     > Initial development of the idea that the mixture of wastes and
>     > charcoal made for better plant growth may have been inspired by
>     > observation of plant growth over old dump sites.  This seems
>     > plausible.  Maybe they just copied what they observed and
>     pottery was
>     > incidental to the dump sites, so they put it in when they tried to
>     > build TP sites.  It seems that they then tried to repeat this TP
>     > phenomenon on a larger scale.  No TP site is naturally
>     occurring?  All
>     > Terra Preta sites are synthetic?
>     >
>     > I'm not sure the Amazon population then could have shit enough into
>     > enough chamber pots, and then broken them, in shatters, to make all
>     > the pottery shards found in all of the Terra Preta found in South
>     > America.  I suspect all of the broken fired pottery was used to hold
>     > all the soil from washing away.
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     >
>     > SKB
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >     ----- Original Message -----
>     >     *From:* Kevin Chisholm <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net
>     <mailto:kchisholm at ca.inter.net>>
>     >     *To:* Sean K. Barry <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com
>     <mailto:sean.barry at juno.com>>
>     >     *Cc:* terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>     <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>
>     >     <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>     <mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org>> ; Greg and April
>     >     <mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net
>     <mailto:gregandapril at earthlink.net>>
>     >     *Sent:* Monday, April 07, 2008 12:22 PM
>     >     *Subject:* Re: [Terrapreta] Terrapreta Digest, Vol 15, Issue 14
>     >
>     >     Dear Sean
>     >
>     >     In your opinion, are pottery shards a necessary component in
>     "Old
>     >     Terra
>     >     Preta"?
>     >
>     >     Kevin
>     >
>     >     Sean K. Barry wrote:
>     >     > Hi Greg,
>     >     >
>     >     > I think that it is only where charcoal-in-soil was put.  If it
>     >     > spreads, why hasn't it in 4500 years?  How can we find
>     individual
>     >     > sites now, closely spaced?
>     >     >
>     >     > Regards,
>     >     >
>     >     > SKB
>     >     >
>