[Terrapreta] Terra Preta los Indios?

[Kevin Chisholm]

Dear Larry

Larry Williams wrote:
> Kevin-------For Terra Preta nova, I understand that we need to produce 
> a very large amount of charcoal in a short period of time to change 
> the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere.  The "nova" variation was 
> suggested to market an old idea in a new context and to distinguish 
> our individually created black earth from the process that created the 
> Amazonian Black Earths (ABE).
OK.
>
> When you use the phrase, "Terra Preta los Indios", could you explain 
> how you distinguish this phrase with Terra Preta de Indio? A literal 
> translation is not what I am missing. What is the history of "Terra 
> Preta los Indios"... the context? I am not sure who was the first to 
> use this phrase so if you were not that person could the person who 
> used it (coined it?) reply.

This was a mistake on my part. Wherever I used the phrase "Terra Preta 
los Indios", I meant it to mean everything that was meant by the correct 
phrase " Terra Preta de Indio". My apologies for any confusion my error 
may have created.
>
> We do have some new members to this list that may be confused by these 
> variants --------Larry

I feel  that there is a lot of looseness associated with the term "Black 
Earth", in addition to my error. Firstly, it is very possible for a 
"Black Earth" to be made naturally, in addition to being made by Man. 
While some natural Black Earth soils are naturally fertile, (eg, the 
Holland Marsh near Toronto, Ont), other natural Black Earth soils are 
not (eg, those in Indiana.). Some classic Terra Preta Soils are very 
fertile, while others seem to be "run down." Possibly the Terra Mulata 
is a "run down Amazonian Dark Earth" which could have been upgraded to a 
classic Terra Preta, with the addition of charcoal, shards, and the 
appropriate nutrients.

There also seems to be considerable looseness in equating Organic Matter 
with Black Carbon, and Char.

I think that many of us could indeed benefit from having the various 
soil types more clearly defined.

Best wishes,

Kevin
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------
> On Apr 7, 2008, at 8:54 PM, Kevin Chisholm wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Terrapreta mailing list
>> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
>> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
>> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
>> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>>
>
>