chernozem

Anthropogenic Chernozem genesis in Central Europe? A contribution to the current debate. – The recently often offered thesis of the anthropogenic origin of Central European Chernozems during the Early Neolithic is refuted following critical discourse. The prevailing model of natural Chernozem genesis must however account for the fact that combustion residues contribute to the formation of the humus component of Chernozems. The supposed relation between Chernozem genesis and Linear Pottery Culture is obviously non-existent. Human intervention in soil development – generally associated with soil contamination and degradation – was in the case of the Central European Chernozems conservational in nature, and not as postulated substrate-creative. The relation between soil and Early Neolithic settlement will be discussed based on the example of a section of landscape between the Weser River and Harz Mountains.

A well-based knowledge about the former distribution of Chernozems and Phaeozems is necessary to (i) better understand the factors influencing formation and degradation of these highly fertile soils, and (ii) better explain prehistoric settlement patterns that were also determined by natural factors such as soil fertility. During this archaeopedological study carried out in Central Germany we applied sedimentological and micromorphological methods to compare soils and pedosediments from the recent Chernozem/Phaeozem region with black-coloured pedosediments buried in early Neolithic structures of the recent Luvisol area directly to the east. Relocated clay coatings and significantly lower magnetic enhancement compared to Chernozem/Phaeozem-derived material were found in most black-coloured pedosediments in the Luvisol area. This demonstrates that despite their location next to an extensive Chernozem/Phaeozem area these sediments do not originate from Chernozems or Phaeozems. Instead, their dark colour must either originate from anthropogenic input similar to black-coloured Anthrosols (“Dark Earth”), or must stem from Ah-material of former Luvisols. Consequently, may be apart from a small relatively dry and carbonate-rich Luvisol region northwest of Leipzig there was obviously no significantly larger distribution of Neolithic Chernozems and Phaeozems in this region during the past. Consequently, the regional early Neolithic settlers of the Linear Pottery Culture settled intensively also in areas outside the distribution of Chernozems and Phaeozems, and the activities of these settlers did not lead to the formation of such soils. Thus, fertile soils were obviously only one factor among probably others to explain the regional Neolithic settlement pattern. Significantly lower carbonate contents were found for the parent material of the black-coloured pedosediments in the Luvisol region compared with the parent material of Chernzems and Phaeozems. This demonstrates that the decisive factor to explain the recent and former spatial distribution of Chernozems and Phaeozems in this relatively dry area is the carbonate dynamics. Anthropogenic activity since the early Neolithic period obviously helped to preserve the naturally formed Chernozems and Phaeozems by re-carbonatization processes, but humans were not the main soil forming factor in early settled regions.

A well-based knowledge about the former distribution of Chernozems and Phaeozems is necessary to (i) better understand the factors influencing formation and degradation of these highly fertile soils, and (ii) better explain prehistoric settlement patterns that were also determined by natural factors such as soil fertility. During this archaeopedological study carried out in Central Germany we applied sedimentological and micromorphological methods to compare soils and pedosediments from the recent Chernozem/Phaeozem region with black-coloured pedosediments buried in early Neolithic structures of the recent Luvisol area directly to the east. Relocated clay coatings and significantly lower magnetic enhancement compared to Chernozem/Phaeozem-derived material were found in most black-coloured pedosediments in the Luvisol area. This demonstrates that despite their location next to an extensive Chernozem/Phaeozem area these sediments do not originate from Chernozems or Phaeozems. Instead, their dark colour must either originate from anthropogenic input similar to black-coloured Anthrosols (“Dark Earth”), or must stem from Ah-material of former Luvisols. Consequently, may be apart from a small relatively dry and carbonate-rich Luvisol region northwest of Leipzig there was obviously no significantly larger distribution of Neolithic Chernozems and Phaeozems in this region during the past. Consequently, the regional early Neolithic settlers of the Linear Pottery Culture settled intensively also in areas outside the distribution of Chernozems and Phaeozems, and the activities of these settlers did not lead to the formation of such soils. Thus, fertile soils were obviously only one factor among probably others to explain the regional Neolithic settlement pattern. Significantly lower carbonate contents were found for the parent material of the black-coloured pedosediments in the Luvisol region compared with the parent material of Chernzems and Phaeozems. This demonstrates that the decisive factor to explain the recent and former spatial distribution of Chernozems and Phaeozems in this relatively dry area is the carbonate dynamics. Anthropogenic activity since the early Neolithic period obviously helped to preserve the naturally formed Chernozems and Phaeozems by re-carbonatization processes, but humans were not the main soil forming factor in early settled regions.