Research Unearths Terrace Farming at Ancient Desert City of Petra

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.uc.edu/news/NR.aspx?id=17078

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Research Unearths Terrace Farming at Ancient Desert City of Petra[/font]
[font size=4]New archaeological research dates the heyday of terrace farming at the ancient desert city of Petra to the first century. This development led to an explosion of agricultural activity, increasing the city’s strategic significance as a military prize for the Roman Empire.[/font]

Date: 1/2/2013 12:00:00 AM

[font size=3]…

The successful terrace farming of wheat, grapes and possibly olives, resulted in a vast, green, agricultural “suburb” to Petra in an otherwise inhospitable, arid landscape. This terrace farming remained extensive and robust through the third century. Based on surface finds and comparative data collected by other researchers in the area, however, it is clear that this type of farming continued to some extent for many centuries, until the end of the first millennium (between A.D. 800 and 1000). That ancient Petra was under extensive cultivation is a testament to past strategies of land management, and is all the more striking in light of the area’s dry and dusty environment today.

…

AGRICULTURAL SUCCESS FOLLOWED BY ANNEXATION
Dating the start of extensive terrace farming at Petra to the beginning of the common era has important historical implications, according to Cloke, because this date coincides closely with the Roman annexation of the Nabataean Kingdom in A.D. 106.

He explained, “No doubt the explosion of agricultural activity in the first century and the increased wealth that resulted from the wine and oil production made Petra an exceptionally attractive prize for Rome. The region around Petra not only grew enough food to meet its own needs, but also would have been able to provide olives, olive oil, grapes and wine for trade. This robust agricultural production would have made the region a valuable asset for supplying Roman forces on the empire’s eastern frontier.”

…

Rainfall in the region occurs only between October and March, often in brief, torrential downpours, so it was important for Petra’s inhabitants to capture and store all available water for later use during the dry season. Over the centuries, the Nabataeans of Petra became experts at doing so. The broad watershed of sandstone hills naturally directed water flow to the city center, and a complex system of pipes and channels directed it to underground cisterns where it was stored for later use.

…[/font][/font]

[tama]

1. Any new insights

why it failed and Petra was abandoned?

[happyslug]

2. Petra started to decline after 363 AD, but the real blow had been in 241 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra#Decline
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/petra

Petra, at its height, main source or revenue was its control of the trade routes from Hadra (and thus from most of Mesopotamia, present day Iraq). Hadra's history is a mystery, it survived a Siege by Trajan around 117 AD and later another siege in around 198 AD by Septimius Severus. Then fell to the Sassanid Empire in 241 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatra
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Geography/hatra.htm
http://www.academia.edu/887649/What_happened_at_Hatra_The_problem_of_the_Severan_siege_operations

Trajan's war against the Parthanian had no long lasting affect, his successor Hadrian abandon much of what Trajan had conquered. On the other hand Septimius Severus sacking of Ctesiphon in 197 AD and his siege of Hadra around 198 AD, did have long lasting affect, it showed how weak was the Pathanian's hold on its Empire, and permitted the Persians to overthrow the Pathanians and set up a native leader as its leader, the Sassanid dynasty and the Sassanid Empire. The Pathanian Empire had been a weak feudal Empire, with little control over anything outside the Euphrates and Tigris River Valleys. The Sassanid Empire was a much more centralized controlled Empire, with control not only over Modern Iraq but also the Persian Gulf and what is now northern Saudi Arabia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sassanid_Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthian_Empire

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimius_Severus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatra
http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Geography/hatra.htm

With this control, the trade routes shifted, from Hatra (destroyed in 241 AD) to Mosul. Instead of Hatra to Petra and then to Gaza, the trade route shifted north and went from Mosul to Damascus or Aleppo in present day Syria and then to Lebanon. The Old Hatra to Petra and then to Gaza route was abandoned (or more accurately closed off) so to maintain control over the Caravan routes.

A secondary reason, may be the overall drying out of the area. North African and Arabia has been drying out since for about 4500 years. Till the time of Christ, there was enough water to use horses to haul cargo from Timbuktu, on the Niger River, to Carthage, on the Mediterranean coast. Either the Romans or the Arabs (there is a debate, the Roman may have only used Camels for Military patrols from the time of Augustus till the Arab Conquest) but by the late Dark Ages, Camels had replaced Horses on those trade routes due to increasing lack of water on the route. This same drying seems to have affected Arabia.

More on the Sahara:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

Map of Africa and the Mid-East, the redder the area the more sunlight it gets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SolarGIS-Solar-map-Africa-and-Middle-East-en.png

Notice Petra is just north of some of the areas of Arabia that gets the most sunlight. Thus it can be affected by any change in climate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolation

Thus a change in weather pattern may have also been a factor:
Temperature over the last 2000 years:


http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2010/dec/15dec2010a4.html

I bring climate up, for the decline in Petra mimics the decline in world wide temperatures. Temperatures started to decline about 180 AD. First bottoming out about 220 AD, then again in 480 AD, then again about 540 AD. Temperatures then go back up to what it had been around 200 AD in 620 and then up and down around that same temperature till about 820 AD. By that time Petra is long abandoned.

Between the drying up of the Desert area followed by the above fluctuations in temperatures, may have been enough to see massive crop failure, and with the decline in trade a double hit that Petra could NOT overcome.

[tama]

3. I ask because

about 20 years ago I was in Jordania for few months, participating in a team that was working with carbonized papyri found from Petra. IIRC the latest date we found during that time was about 560 AD in document describing life as usual. Haven't been following that field very closely since that.

Thanks for very informative response. The archive (records on land ownership etc.) was found in a burned church and some documents contained also arabic writing. Which made the Jordanian hosts very happy .

Ah, there's also a wiki article on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petra_papyri

And here's bit more: http://nabataea.net/scrolls.html

[happyslug]

6. Most societies can survive one or two hits, but not three or more

Thus, you have people trying to find the "Cause" of the end of a civilization, but end up missing that it was a combination of factors that lead to the end of that Society. The Roman Empire is a classic case, many people think it is decadence that cause its fall, yet the worse cases of decadence was around the time of Augustus, 400 years before Rome collapsed.

Modern consensus tend to a combination, first is the concentration of wealth. This Concentration of wealth had occurred even before the end of the Republic (and is believed to be the reason the Republic was replaced by the Empire) but it permitted no cushion for Rome to fall back on in times of Crisis, 99% of the population did NOT care of Rome fell or survived, it would lead to no change in their standard of living. In fact the Area that STAYED within the Roman Empire AFTER the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, was that part of the Empire that had the lease valuable farmland and thus was able to retain small farmers, while the rest of the Empire ended up in huge estates. Diocletian had made some serious tax on land reforms, that appears to have only been applied to Greece and Asia Minor for this reason (and survived till after WWI in parts of what is now Turkey). These reforms in taxation later lead to reforms further tying in land ownership with Military duty that after 600 AD spread to all of Europe and is known as the Feudal System of land ownership (peasants farmed the land, but technically did not "own" it, but had a right to farm it and that right was inheritable and permanent unless the peasant failed to perform his feudal duties, which were tied in with the Military after the military reforms of Heraclitus at the time of the last Roman-Persian War and the Arab Conquest).

Notice the land reforms, from Diocletian to Heraclitus (Over 300 years) ended up being concentrated in what later was called the Byzantine Empire (But itself referred to itself as the Roman Republic or Romania or its later Turkish/Arab term Rumalia). The reason for this was the Roman Imperial elite refused to permit it to spread to the rest of the Empire for it meant they loss assets. That the reform was needed to give the poor a reason to support the Government was unimportant to them.

When Justinian re-took Italy, Carthage and Southern Spain during his reign, he ended up going in debt, for the traditional way to pay for a war, the booty from the war including the land, could NOT be used to pay for the war, for the Roman Elite claim them as they property while complaining of Justinian's high taxes to pay for the army to return those areas to the Empire.

A similar situation seems to have occurred under Heraclitus, the Empire had Lost Egypt to Persia who held Egypt for about 10 years, while Herculius reformed his army, tying in military service with the right to farm as explained above, and then using that army to destroy the Persian Empire. Once Heraclitus had destroyed Persia, Egypt was returned to Roman Control AND to the Roman elite who had been kicked out by the Persians when they took over. These elites demand that the Egyptian peasants not only pay them they ongoing rent for use of the land, but the rent for the time period Egypt was ruled by Persia. Egypt had NOT been subject to the reforms mentioned above called these elite "tyrants" and when the Arab Conquest started less then a dozen years later, while rejecting Islam. Egypt would stay Christian till the Crusades, supported the Arab Conquest for it removed these old Roman Elites and thus providing the peasants with more of what they produced.

Thus Rome fell in those areas where the Roman Elite had the greatest share of the "Wealth" and survived in the area where the old Roman Elite had the least. Byzantine survived till it fell into the same trap, the Roman Republic and Empire and fallen into, to much concentration of wealth in to few hands AND the increase need for support of the lower classes of society. Under the Byzantine Empire this concentration of Wealth was never as bad as during the late Roman Empire for the Themes of Byzantine restricted concentration of Wealth. This system worked till the Themes were undermined by Climate Change as Asia Minor Dried out during the Middle Age Warm Period, which is about 900-1250 AD (Western Europe boomed during the Warm Period, but Asia Minor entered into a dry period, converting a lot of farm land to pasture, which with the Turk's entrance into Central Asia Minor as pasture users forced th Greeks to the edges of Asia Minor).

I am getting off the subject of the collapse of the Roman Empire and onto why the 1/3 of the Empire that spoke Greek Survived (and while the Latin Speaking and Arab/Egyptian Speaking areas were lost to the Roman Empire). At the time of the Collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the area with the highest concentration of Christian was the Eastern Empire, furthermore Christianity was a concept that could skip over difference in language and nationality and thus was a unifying concept. The Abandonment of paganism seems to be more an attempt to get people of different backgrounds to think of themselves as one people instead of various people ruled by a dictator (Emperor if they liked him, Tyrant if their hated him). The Chistitianiztion of the Empire shows an empire in search of a center concept of unity instead of just military might. This Christianizing of the Empire seems NOT to be a factor in its fall (and may have help the Empire survive as long as it did).

Now the classic explanation of the Fall of the Roman Empire is due to Decadence and Christianization of the Empire, it became weak and the Barbarians then defeated the weakened Roman Legions and curved up the Empire among themselves. The problem with this is that, except for the Vandals, every Barbarian invader was DEFEATED by the Romans. After the sacking of Rome by the Goths, and Roman power was on the upswing, did the Rome go after the Goths? Not they went after the people in what is now Brittany. Why? Those peasants had revolted against their Roman Elites and had basically started land reforms, giving the land to the peasants. The Goths had NEVER done that (at that time, in the early 500s the Goths that controlled Italy would do so, and it is for that Crime that Justinian invaded Italy and re-took it from the Goths). Yes, Roman might, until the last Roman-Persian War AND the Arab Conquest, was aimed and used against any group that took land from the Roman Elites to give that land to the Roman Peasants. You see this over and over again. The Barbarians, after they are defeated, and moved by the Romans to areas of Roman Peasant Revolts (This is how Brittany gets its name, Breton elite who left Britain after the abandonment of Britain in 410 AD and the subsequent revolt of the Saxons, who had been invited in to help put down the peasants in Britain, were settled in what is now Brittany to be used to put down the peasants).

Side Note: The Roman Genera, Flavius Aetius, who defeated Attila the Hun, had in the middle of his line the above peasants. Why they showed up is unknown. That battle was in many ways a Christian vs Pagan battle, thus the Armoricans joined the Roman/Christian side, while in revolt against Rome. Some suspect a deal had been reached between the Roman General and the Armoricans, in effect he accepted the changes in land ownership the Armoricans wanted, in exchange for their support. If true this would be why that General was killed off by the Western Emperor less then two years later (and why the General did NOT come to the aid of the Emperor when Attila attacked Rome the year after Attila's defeat at Chalon). Please note most historians do NOT know or state why the Armoricans fought on the side to Aetius, just report that they did.

More about Attila's defeat at Chalon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Catalaunian_Plains

On Aetius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavius_A%C3%ABtius

The above rejection of Rome by the 99% of the Roman people had no effect by itself. As long as Rome could survive with a small army, it survived and the condition of the peasants got worse. Under the Roman Republic it was possible to have up to 100 Legions in operations at the same time, but under the Empire (and the late Republic) the Militia based Legion that defeated Hannibal, were replaced by mercenary legions. The reason was simple, Militia forces to be effective must support the war they are fighting in, and since the Militia and the people are the same, the people must support the war. If no support from the people, a Militia force tends to be ineffective. When the Roman Elite wanted to get more slaves after the Second Punic War, they went to war to get slaves AND to steal lands from the now almost defenseless countries around the Roman Republic. This brought no money to the poor Roman who made up the Militia Legions and they ended up refusing to go (and maybe even planning to revolt against the Roman Elite). To solve this "problem" Marius in 109 BC "reformed" the Roman Army. Instead of being Militia, he paid the troops himself to serve. Marius would also arm and equip the troops. Thus the Legion became a mercenary force, loyal to their pay masters NOT Rome. This was adopted by other members of the Roman Elite, who raised similar legions (and after a Civil War, Sulla set himself up as dictator after killing off Maius).

Under the Empire, the above system remained, the mercenary legions were NOT paid out of the State Coffins, instead the Emperor became the sole person who could PAY the troops. Thus the Troops were loyal to their pay master (the Emperor) not to the Roman Empire. Given the lack of threats, Augustus reduced the number of legions to 30 and then transferred them to the Frontier (Where it was cheaper to maintain them). This would remain the Roman Army place till the crisis of the 200s. In the 200s, the silver mines of Spain had watered out, thus the inflation caused by constantly making new Silver coins ended. To continue what had been going on for over 300 years, subsequent Emperors did what Nero had other Emperors had done (But only to a slight amount compared to the Emperors of the 200), debase the currency, but in increasing amounts so that by the end of the 200s, Roman Coins had almost no Silver in them. Notice you had two series of debasement of currency occurring at the same time. First the general inflation caused by increase number of silver coins produced from 100 BC to 250 AD AND Second a debasement of the actual coins from Nero onward. This slight inflation ended up being good for the economy and Rome Boomed during this period. It is as the Silver production DROPPED and debasement became the only way to increase revenue that inflation went wild.

The real problem, was about 220 AD, Two things occurred, First the Parthanian Empire was replaced by the Sassadid Persian Empire (It appears to be the long term effect of the Roman Sacking of the Persian Capital in 197 AD) AND Second the Goths in Germany, due to the long term effect of Marcus Aurelius's attempt to conquer Germany around 170 -175 AD, centralized control and became real powers that could oppose Roman Control. For the first time since Hannibal, you had countries that bordered Roman Territory that could challenge Roman Military might. Rome in response enlarged its army, but being mercenary that required increase revenue, revenues due to the decline in climate which were falling (and contributing to the above two changes in opponents of Rome).

Out of the Criss of the Third Century (the 200s) a New Roman Army arouse, still a mercenary army. but much larger in number and paid, not by cash, but in land (Diocletian's Reforms). Gold replaced Silver as the main form of Currency (and most Gold was obtained by raiding the Pagan Temples, thus enhancing the push for Christianity). Troops started to be paid in land instead of Coin, but given the fact the Roman Elite OWNED most of the land of the Empire, this restricted how many troops the Emperor could raise (And given that the area with the least ownership of land by the Roman Elite was Balkans, Asia Minor and Greece, these areas where many of the Roman Troops were raised).

Various explanations have been given for why the Greek Speaking part of the Roman Empire survived, while the Latin and Egyptian/Arab speaking areas were lost, but all tend to fail for it was a combination that did in the Roman Empire (Except for the Greek Speaking part).

1. The separation of the people from the army, in the act of switching from a Militia army to a Mercenary army in 109 BC. By itself was NOT fatal, but it was a fatal flaw that combined with other problems would lead to the fall of the Roman Empire.

2. Tied in with the above was the increasing concentration of wealth, starting with the second Punic War, it separated war making from defense of the Country. Further separating the people from the ability of Rome to defend itself.

3. The raise of Persia and the Goths, more as a result of blow back operations by the Roman elite to increase their own wealth (in the form of Slaves in both war, and gold and silver in the form of sacking of the Persian Capital in 197 AD). These new threats required a larger army, one as large as that had defeated Hannibal and the inability of the Roman Empire to pay for such a mercenary army AND the refusal to make the needed social reforms to transform the Army to a much cheaper to raise, but more restrictive in use, Militia Army.

4. The Increasing willingness of the Roman Poor to support Barbarian Rulers who replaced the Roman Elites in the areas Rome gave them to control. At first the Barbarians acted as allies of the Roman Elite, putting down the poor, but within a generation the fact that the Barbarians had more in common with the Roman poor then the Roman elite, lead the Barbarians to embrace land reform at the expense of the Roman Elite.

5. The Vandals are a special case, while undefeated, they wanted and accepted Roman acceptance of their rule over Carthage in 450 AD. Having NOT been planted on North African Soil, they quickly moved against the Roman Elite ownership rights in North Africa. This strengthened they rule over North Africa. It was so strong they were even able to sack Rome itself in 460 AD, The real harm was the lost of Carthage cut the Mediterranean Sea in half, something Rome had NOT faced since the end of the Second Punic War in 202 BC. This ended most east-west trade overnight and both the Eastern and Western Empire had to adjust. They had fully adjusted by the Rule of Justinian in the early 500s when North Africa was retaken by Rome, but the advantages of holding Carthage after 570 AD was offset by the lost of most of Italy to the Lombards AND the drop in world wide temperatures after about 520 AD.

6. World Wide Temperatures started to drop after about 180 AD. Mass Migrations are tided in with drop in world wide temperatures NOT increases in Temperatures, so the various movements of the various Barbarian Tribes from 180 AD to 820 AD is best explained in terms of world wide temperature drops (And then only at the end of the drop, as temperature rebound a bit do you see mass movement). Thus Rome was hit with Barbarian Attacks, at the same time it was being hit by peasant revolts and a overall drop in income.

7. The Temperature drop saw a areas previously farmable with Mediterranean farming methods becoming unfarmable. This was mostly on the Northern Frontier where the Emperor had more of the land, as opposed to further into the Empire where other members of the Roman Elite owned the land. Thus the Emperor had a drop in income.

8. While the Slavic invasions of the 600s is generally considered after the Fall of the Roman Empire, the Slavs seems to have adopted the Heavy Plow which permitted them to farm lands, unfarmable by Mediterranean farming techniques. The Slaves in the period from 400-600 were tied in with the Avars, the Gephids and the Lombards, who were all allies of Attila till his death and the afterward replaced the Huns as the main enemy of Rome in Eastern Europe. Please note, when the Byzantine Empire had drive away the Arab army trying to take Constantinople, it sent its army against the SLAVS not the arabs, for they more feared the movement of the Slavs into the Balkans then the Arabs move out of Arabia.

9. The introduction of Chinese Iron production methods via the Slavs. While Rome had the ability to produce Iron, it was an inferior method of production to the Chinese and for this reason most Roman Armor tended to be bronze not iron. With the Chinese Iron Production, the heavy plow AND the use of Iron as body armor was possible at much lower prices then Rome could duplicate, giving the Barbarians an advantage the Romans could NOT match.

10. The refusal of the Roman Elite to embrace any form of wealth other then land, thus the water wheel took 400 years to move from the Mid-East to the Western Empire, for it did NOT increase the wealth of the Roman Elite, but the Wealth of the poor (by making it easier to ground grain). The heavy plow was a Asia Minor invention about the time of Augustus, but arrived in Western Europe via the Slavs in the 600s.

Notice all of the above, by themselves, The Roman Empire would have survived (and did in the form of concentration of wealth) but together it was a fatal mix. That is true of most societies, one or two problems the Society can handle, but overtime, if unaddressed, the problems remain and joined by others that lead to collapse. Thus this seems to be what happened to Petra, it was a combination of problems that lead to its collapse not just one single reason.

Diocletian (with his reforms of how to pay the Army), Constantine (with his reform to make Christianity the religion of the Empire AND his replacement of Silver with Gold as the currency of the Empire), and Heraclitus and the formation of the Themes (tyeing military duty with land ownership), all contributed to the survival of the Empire in its Greek Speaking parts. These reforms failed due to the massive Resistance to them in areas of the Empire where the Roman Elite owned most, if not all of the land. Thus Byzantine Empire survived for it did NOT have ALL ten of the above problems, it had some of them but once the Western Empire was gone AND Egypt was gone, the concentration of wealth was also gone and the other problems became manageable. Again it show it is a combination of problems that kills a Civilization not any one cause.

[tama]

8. Thanks for good read

After my academic career I got interested "natural philosophy" and environmental dynamics of agricultural sociaties aka civilizations, and was greatly influenced by classic work by two American conservationists "Topsoil and Civilization".

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1720123.Topsoil_and_Civilization
and free pdf copy from:
http://www.soilandhealth.org/copyform.aspx?bookcode=010113

By rule of thumb civilizations collapse because of unsustainable farming (etc.) methods that destroy the carrying capacity of their immediate environment (e.g. the nowday bare rock mountains of much of Greece, Italy etc are caused by human caused erosion by cutting down forests that produced the top soil and protected it against forces of erosion). Some civilized cultures manage to prolong their history by militaristic imperial phase of acquiring topsoil to be mined by conquest and robbery. But the imperialistic energy and ability does not last and meet's its limits, and for long time before becoming modern capitals of fossil energy age, both Rome and Athens were just small villages - even though Rome was Pope's own little village.

Environmental causes of collapses of civilizations are not just single hits, but multiple holistic causation underlying much of social etc. history you describe.

[happyslug]

9. Also remember, what was known as the Papal States, was the richest Farm land in Europe.

It has good soil, good climate and thus an area that can produce bumper crops to support armies in the field. It was the base Rome used to conquer Italy and then the Mediterranean World. It was the base for the Pope's Secular power till Italian unification.

Not that it can not be abused like the soil of Greece, but it can quickly come back, much quicker then the soil of mainland Greece. It was the base for Constantinople control of Italy, until the Franks, under Charlemagne's father, Pepin, took it and then gave it to the Pope in 754 AD. The Army of the Franks was an army paid by loot, and once Rome was taken, the rest of Italy was NOT viewed as increasing the loot available to the troops, and thus Naples and Southern Italy stayed under the Rule of Constantinople (or independent but related to such rule) till the Normans took over after 1000 AD, while the Pope ruled the Papal States from 754 onward.

More on the Norman Conquest of Southern Italy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_southern_Italy

Papal States:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_southern_Italy

Donation of Pepin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Pepin

In the case of Italy, the real population drop did NOT set in till the Italian Wars of 535 to 554. This was Justinian attempt to reestablish the Roman Empire in the West. Justinian succeeded, but at the cost of huge increase in taxes and hatred due to his attempts to raise the money to fight the war with a Mercenary Army, an army, given this was Italy, could NOT be paid out of loot of any of the cities (nor could the land be given to the troops, Roman Elites had prior claims).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_War_(535%E2%80%93554).
http://neobyzantium.com/impact-of-justinians-war-on-italy/
http://www.heritage-history.com/www/heritage-books.php?Dir=books&author=oman&book=byzantine&story=reign

This war saw the Rome switch hands five times, and in the fifth change of hands of Rome, the Population of Rome reached Zero (The Goths removed all of the residents as their vacated the City, except for the Pope, and the Roman General installed new residents after he entered the city). The war lasted 19 years, 19 years that saw the cities of Italy abandoned and the rural area with a huge drop in population. Italy did not recover from centuries. Thus the population drop caused a drop in food production, as opposed to lack of food leading to population reduction.

I bring this up, to show good soil can support a healthy population even after centuries of use. The Papal States are such an area and why it was the key to Roman success under the Roman Republic AND the Papacy.

[tama]

10. That's very important

when left "alone" or dynamically aided, the topsoil fertility on plains (basically microbiotic activity) can recuperate very quickly. It's often said that it takes about seven years after abuse to return soil to naturally fertile state, measured by organic production of preserving and aiding natural fertility giving the same amount of harvest as (suicidal) top soil mining.

Of course each situation is dynamic and different, but as horticultural species par exellence (imagine how plants. etc are competing for human attention and cooperation and coevolution) we have the know-how to transform agricultural societies into sustainable ones.

[Odin2005]

5. Uh, you do know that chart is from a Denier website, right?

[happyslug]

7. Yes, I know it is from a Denial Site, but the temperature variations are accurate

Remember in good propaganda, the best job is to tie in actual true facts with the point you are trying to make, thus why this denier site has this chart. The Chart is ACCURATE, for the time period I am discussing, its bias is its scale, it downplays the increase in temperatures over the last 50 years. For what I am discussing that bias is unimportant, through it would be import if we are talking about Climate Change over the last 50 years.

[Mojorabbit]

4. I love this. Putting the puzzle pieces together after so many years must

be such satisfying work.