Soil as artifact?

#SoilAndCulture: #ethnopedology and science. Can the soil be seen as an artifact?    

What are the implications between  a cultural landscape and  the soil local knowledge in  other cultures?

by Marta Laureanti

I started  to ask myself if  the soil could be considered as an artifact. What is the perception of the soil in contemporary cultures? Does exist   soil local  knowledge? In which way we could have different approach to the recording strategy if we consider other categories of knowledge, other instruments?

Some ethnopedological researches  gave me new inputs for my questions. Ethnopedology is the study of local knowledge about soils and their management, and in recent times it  has been increasingly recognized for its contribution to the evaluation of land use in relation to soil quality and sustainable agriculture. It covers a wide diversity of topics: the formalization of local soil and land knowledge into classification schemes,  the comparison of local and technical soil classifications, the analysis of local land evaluation systems, and the assessment of agro-ecological management practices (Barrera-Bassols, Zick, 2003).

As many studies  in different part of the world have demonstrated, in some cultures can be identified    local knowledge  of the soil properties, often based on qualitative characteristics of the soils: colours, stoniness, taste, consistence (Bautista,Zinck, 2010; Wells & Mihok , 2004; Ali, 2003; Barrera- Bassols , Zinck, Van Ranst, 2006; VanDerwarker, 2005; Gray, Morant, 2003; Ryder, 2003; Wells & Mihok , 2004; Saito,Linquist,Keobulapha,Shiraiwa,Horie, 2006; Adderley, Simpson,Kirscht, Adam,Spencer,Sanderson, 2004).

For example  The Maya soil classification (MSC) is a natural system based on key properties, such as relief position, rock types, size and quantity of stones, color of topsoil and subsoil, depth, water dynamics, and plant-supporting processes. The MSC addresses the soil properties of surficial and subsurficial horizons, and uses plant communities as qualifier in some cases. It was demonstrated that the MSC was  more accurate than the WRB (World Reference Base for Soil Resources) for classifying Leptosols (Bautista,Zinck, 2010).

Such studies  could suggest to the archaeologists that a quantitative research  isn’t  the only way to collect the data. Integrated approaches can allow more points of view and perspectives.

A topographical research in Netherland has suggested that ancient names of portion of land showed a soil/land management practices often governed by the biophysical position of the farms. On the higher sandy areas soil fertility was a major constraint for sustainable farming, whereas on the lower, clayey regions soil workability and water management were important issues. The farmers applied their local knowledge of the soil/land systems consistently and in a holistic manner (Siderius, De Bakker, 2003).

Another example is constituted by the farmers of Damarpota in Bangladesh, which distinguish soil types primarily on the basis of color, consistence, texture, organic matter content, drainage, salinity, acidity, and fertility . They use indigenous methods such as visual observation while tilling, tasting by tongue, feeling and rubbing with fingers to determine various soil properties. Despite their lack of knowledge of soil genesis and chemistry, it was observed that  the farmers are highly knowledgeable in various soil properties that affect crop cultivation (Ali, 2003).

Among some Mesoamerican community soil colour plays  an important role in the recognition of soil distribution patterns by farmers. In general, farmers relate soil colour to elevation, slope gradient, vegetation and relief. Dark soils occur on high elevations, forestland and valleys. Yellowish soils occur on slopes and in plains, while reddish soils occur on washed steep slopes and in low-elevation valleys  (Barrera-Bassols,Zinck,Van Ranst, 2006).

What I am trying to say is that some scientific categories, such  the only use of chemical analysis on the soil doesn’t reflect the same level of knowledge that local inhabitants could have by using other categories, and the same properties that they see could be not represented by technical analysis.

Some studies  were led on artificial mounds.   Colored soils seemed deliberately selected and deposited to create distinct patterns of color (Sherwood & Kidder, 2011; Bernardini, 2004; Johansen, 2004; Owoc, 2004; Papadopoulos, Bejko, Morris, 2008; Saunders, 2004). Besides excavations at Neolithic settlement sites in Orkney have observed varied uses of cultural sediments (traditionally referred to under the blanket term midden) as being incorporated into site construction (Cluett, 2007).

Another example comes from the Mediterrean area. A  study  led  at 84 temple of classical mainland Greece, several Aegean islands and Cyprus on bedrock geology topographic setting, compass orientation, soil profile and plant cover has revealed a striking patterns  between the soil and vegetation  and the dedication to particular deities and cults (Retallack, 2008).

In an integrated research led by archaeologists  and anthropologist at Mexican town of Cuentepec, it was demonstrated that studying only the chemical characterization of the soils in some house  at this village did not capture the whole spectrum of activities recorded by the direct observations of behavior of the locals inhabitats. Translating this results on the archaeological research, this disjuncture prompted them to rethink human spatial behavior and the ways in which chemical and residue data were analyzed and interpreted by archaeologists. They realized that using multiple chemical elements simultaneously to identify discrete spatial areas raised the analytic ability to identify unique combinations or suites of chemical elements in space(fig.3). This could provide clues to the way space was socially used and structured (Dore, Lopez Varela, 2010).

Fig. 3 Display of the chemical data in color after spatial analysis in one house in Cuantupec, Mexico (Dore, Lopez Varela, 2010)



ML

References

Adderley, Simpson,Kirscht, Adam,Spencer,Sanderson. (2004). Enhancing ethno-pedology:integrated approaches to Kanuri and Shuwa Arab definitions in the Kala-Balge region northeast Nigeria. Catena 58, 41-64.

Ali, A. (2003). Farmers’ knowledge of soils and the sustainability of agriculture in a saline water ecosystem in Southwestern Bangladesh. Geoderma 111, 333-353.

Anthwala, Guptab, Sharmac, Anthwald, Kima. (2010). Conserving biodiversity through traditional beliefs in sacred groves in Uttarakhand Himalaya, India. Conservation and Recycling 54, 962-971.

Barrera- Bassols , Zinck, Van Ranst. (2006). Symbolysm, knowledge and managment ofsoil and land resourcesin indigenous communities. Catena 65, 118-137.

Barrera-Bassols, Zick. (2003). Ethnopedology: a worldwide view on the soil knowledge of local people. Geoderma 111, 171-195.

Barrera-Bassols,Zinck,Van Ranst. (2006). Local soil classification and comparison of indigenous and technical soil maps in Mesoamercian community using spatial analysis. Geoderma 135, 140-162.

Barrett, J. C. (1995). Some Challenges in Contemporary Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

Barrios, Delve,Bekunda et alii. (2006). Indicators of soil quality: a south-south-development of a methodological guide for linking local and technical knowledge. Geoderma 135, 248-259.

Bautista,Zinck. (2010). Construction of an Yucatec maya soil classification and a comparison with the WRB framework. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 6:7, 1-11.

Bender, Hamilton, Tilley.(1997). Leshernick: Stone Worlds; Alternative narratives; Nested Landscape in Proceedings of the PrehistoricSociety 63, 147-178.

Bernardini, W. (2004). Hopewell geometric earthworks: a case study in the referential and experiential meaning of monuments. Journal of Antrhopological Archaeology, 331-356.

Buchli & Lucas. (2001). Archaeologies of the contemporary past. London & NY: Routledge.

Card,Downes,Gibson,Ovenden. (2007). Bringing a landscape to life? Researching managing "The Heart of Neolithic Orkney World Heritage". World Archaeology 39, 417-435.

Carroll. (1995). What the tortoise said to Achilles. reprinted on Mind vol 104, n.416, 691-93.

Cluett, J. (2007). Characterising and interpreting cultural soils and sediment associated with the Heart of Neolithic Orkney UNESCO World Heritage Site,. Stirling University: Unpubl. PHD thesis.

D'Avila. (1999). Il castello interiore. Palermo: Sellerio.

Dore, Lopez Varela. (2010). Kaleidoscopes, Palimpsests, and Clay: Realities and Complexities in Human Activities. Journal Archaeological Method Theory 17, 279-302.

Driessen. (2010). Farmers engaged in deliberative practices; an ethnographic exploration of the mosaic of concerns i nlivestock agriculture. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics.

Evans & Daly. (2006). Digital Archaeology, bridging method and theory. London & NY: Routledge.

Feyerabend, P. (2002). Contro il metodo. Milano: Feltrinelli.

Fisher. (2009). Placing social interaction: An integrative approach to analyzing past built environments. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28, 439-457.

German, L. (2003). Historical contingencies in the coevolution of environment and livehood:contributions to the debate on Amazonian Black Earth. Geoderma 111, 307-331.

Gray, Morant. (2003). Reconciling indigenous knowledge with scientific assessment of soil fertility changes i nsouthwestern Burkina Faso. Geoderma 111, 425-437.

Harris, E. (1989). Principles of archaeological stratigraphy. London: Academic Press.

Historic Scotland. (2008). Heart of Neolithic Orkney World heritage Site.

Hodder, I. (2000). The archaeological process. Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Inc.

Johansen, P. (2004). Lndscape,monumental architecture and ritual: a reconsideration of the South Indian ashmounds. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23, 309-330.

Johns, C. (2009). Becoming a reflective practitioner. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Jones, A. (2001). Drawn from Memory: the archaeology of aesthetics and the aestetics of archaeology in Earlier Bronze Age Britain and the present. World Archaeology, vol.33, No.2, 334-356.

Lima,M.(2011) Visual Complexity: Mapping patterns of information. Princeton: Architectural Press.

Lopez Varela & Dore. (2010). Social Spaces of Daily Life: a reflexive approach to the analysis of chemical residues by multivariate spatial analysis. Journ Archaeological Method Theory 17, 249-278.

Lucas, G. (2001). Critical Approaches to Fieldwork. London & NY: Routledge.

Mc Fayden. (2008). Building an architecture as landscape practice. In D. Thomas, Handbook of landscape archaelogy (pp. 307-314). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

Matthews, French, Lawrence, Cutler, Jones. (1997). Microstratigraphic traces of site formation processes and human activities. Worl Archaeologyv 29, 281-308.

Owoc, M. (2004). A phenomenology of a buried landscape.Soil as Material Culture in the Bronze Age of South West Britain. London: UCL.

Papadopoulos, Bejko, Morris. (2008). Reconstructing the prehistoric burial tumulus of Lofkënd in Albania. Antiquity 82 , 686-701.

Retallack, G. (2008). Rocks, views, soil and plants at the temples of ancient Greece. Antiquity 82, 640-657.

Rousseau, J. (2006). Le Confessioni. Milano: Garzanti.

Ryder, R. (2003). Local soils knowledge and site suitability evaluation i nthe Dominican Republic. Geoderma 111 , 289-305.

Saito,Linquist,Keobulapha,Shiraiwa,Horie. (2006). Farmers' knowledge of soils in relation to cropping practices: a case study of farmers in upland rice based slash-and -burn systems of northern Laos. Geoderma 136, 64-74.

Sant'Agostino. (2006). Le confessioni. Milano: Mondadori.

Saunders, N. (2004). The cosmic earth materiality and mineralogy in the Americas. In O. M. Boivin N, Soils, stones and symbols:cultural perceptions of material world (pp. 123-142). London: UCL.

Shank & Tilley. (1996). Social theory and archaeology. Cambridge: Polity press.

Sherwood & Kidder. (2011). The Da Vincis of dirt: geoarchaeological perspectives on Native American mound building i nthe Mississipi River basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30, 69-87.

Siderius, De Bakker. (2003). Toponymy and soil nomenclature in the Netherlands. Geoderma 111, 521-536.

Singh, Agnihotri,Pande, Husain. (2011). Biodiversity conservation through a traditional beliefs system in Indian Himalaya: a case study from Nakuleshwar sacred grove. Environmentalist 31, 246-253.

Smith & Edwards. (2004). The Garbage Crisis in prehistory: artefact discard patterns at the Early Natufian site of Wadi Hammeh 27 and the origins of household refuse disposal strategies . Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 23, 253-289.

Stewart, T. (2003). I sentieri si tracciano camminando. Milano: Corbaccio.

Thomas. (2008). Archaeology, landscape, dwelling. In D. Thomas, Handbook of landscape archaeology (pp. 8-26). Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press.

Tilley. (1989). Excavation as theatre. Antiquity 63, 275-80.

VanDerwarker & Peres. (2010). Integrating Zooarchaeology and Archaeofaunal data. New York: Springer .

VanDerwarker. (2005). Field cultivaltion and tree managment in tropical agriculture: a view from Gulf Coastal Mexico. World Archaeology, 275-289.

Vattuone,Neder et alii. (2008). Mothern Earth:soil and people relationships during the prehispanic period (Northwest Argentina). World Archaeology Vol. 40(2), 190–205.

Wells & Mihok . (2004). Ancient Maya, Perceptions of Soil, Land and Earth. In F. C. Landa E., Soyl and culture (pp. 311-328). London: Springer.