home and local food

Topsoil and Civilization

Vernon Gill Carter and Tom Dale, Topsoil and Civilization, revised edition (University of Oklahoma Press, 1974 (1955))

1. AN OVERVI EW

WHEN THE earth was young, there was no life and no soil on this planet. Living things first appeared in some of the seas or oceans about two billion years ago, according to the most generally accepted estimates. For about one and two-thirds billion years, however, living things were restricted to the waters of the oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers. And there was no soil as we know it today.

Until about 350,000,000 years ago, the continents and islands that projected above the surface of the oceans were covered with bare rock or sterile rock particles that had been separated from the parent material by the elements. There were some accumulations of water-borne gravel, sand, or silt in depressions and along the shores. There were some wind-blown sand dunes in desert climates. But these accumulations of silt, sand, and gravel contained no organic matter and supported no life. Erosion by water and wind kept most of the land surface bare of anything but solid rock.

During the Silurian period, about 350,000,000 years ago, primitive plants and animals began to establish themselves on land. This was the beginning of soil formation—soil that would support life. Through millions of years, some plants gradually adapted themselves to living farther and farther [end p.3] from their native homes, the seas. These land plants drew their sustenance from the air, sunlight, and rain, and from the minerals in the rock particles that anchored them. First they covered the coasts and valleys where there were accumulations of sand and silt. Then they started up the hillsides. As they crept up the slopes of eroding hills and mountains, their roots helped bind the fine rock particles together. This slowed down the erosion process that had kept these slopes bare of soil. Gradually, hillsides were covered with a mantle of vegetation and soil. In the meantime, the valleys were being covered with thicker layers of soil and denser vegetation.

The soil layer on the hillsides was thin at first, but it became thicker from century to century and millenium to millenium. The plants and their roots trapped more and more of the fine rock particles that previously had been washed downhill to the seas or blown into sand dunes. As each plant died, it added its organic remains to the minerals of the rock particles. Bacteria and other forms of simple plant life began to live off the organic matter in the newly made soil.

Meanwhile, the many species of small animals that fed upon the plants had followed their hosts inland. Some of the primitive animals lived on the ground surface and fed upon the exposed portions of the plants or upon each other. Other species burrowed into the ground and fed upon the plant roots or the decaying organic matter in the soil. All of them added their dead carcasses to the soil, still further enriching it. Thus began the formation of what we now know as topsoil—the upper layer of earth that is rich in organic matter and is teeming with minute plant and animal life.

Land-based plants and animals and the soil that supported [end p.4] them all continued to grow through the milleniums. Interdependent, they thrived mainly because they supported each other. As the soil became richer and deeper, the plants became larger and more numerous. As plant growth became more luxuriant, the number and size of animals increased. The greater masses of living things added more organic matter to the soil as they perished, and they helped trap and hold more rock particles. This, in turn, made the soil still richer and deeper, and as the cycle continued, the amount of life supported by the soil eventually rivaled that of the oceans. And the land plants and animals evolved to higher forms than the oceans could produce.

The laws of “natural selection” forced practically all plants and animals to support the soil-building process. No species of plant could long survive on sloping hillsides unless it helped check soil erosion. No species of animal developed enough intelligence or versatility to survive for long unless it tended to support the continued growth of plants and soil. If a species of plant or animal did evolve that tended to destroy the soil, it usually destroyed itself instead by destroying its primary source of food.

For about 350,000,000 years, the growth of soil and land-based life continued. The quantity and quality of soil and life increased. Earth upheavals, broad climatic changes, and other natural phenomena caused destruction of both soil and life in many regions at times. But over the earth as a whole, the soil-building process went on. And the evolution of plants and animals to higher forms and greater abundance continued.

Primitive man came on the scene about one million years ago. He did not upset the natural process of soil, plant, and [end p.5] animal growth. He, like other animals, was forced to adapt himself to his natural environment in order to survive—that is, until he became civilized enough to master the other animals and the plants and attempt to master Nature herself.

With the advent of civilized man, about six thousand years ago, the soil-building process was reversed in most areas where he resided: the quantity and quality of soil and the amount of life the soil supported all began to decline. His superior tools and intelligence enabled civilized man to domesticate or destroy a great part of the plant and animal life around him. But more important, his improved tools and techniques helped him, unwittingly, to destroy the productivity of the soil that supported life. His intelligence and versatility made it possible for him to do something no other animal had ever been able to do—greatly alter his environment and still survive and multiply.

Civilized man was nearly always able to become master of his environment temporarily. His chief troubles came from his delusions that his temporary mastership was permanent. He thought of himself as “master of the world,” while failing to understand fully the laws of nature.

Man, whether civilized or savage, is a child of nature—he is not the master of nature. He must conform his actions to certain natural laws if he is to maintain his dominance over his environment. When he tries to circumvent the laws of nature, he usually destroys the natural environment that sustains him. And when his environment deteriorates rapidly, his civilization declines.

One man has given a brief outline of history by saying that “civilized man has marched across the face of the earth and left a desert in his footprints.” This statement may be [end p.6] somewhat of an exaggeration, but it is not without foundation. Civilized man has despoiled most of the lands on which he has lived for long. This is the main reason why his progressive civilizations have moved from place to place. It has been a chief cause for the decline of his civilizations in older settled regions. It has been a dominant factor in determining all trends of history.

The writers of history have seldom noted the importance of land use. They seem not to have recognized that the destinies of most of man’s empires and civilizations were determined largely by the way the land was used. While recognizing the influence of environment on history, they fail to note that man usually changed or despoiled his environment.

Many historians point out the fact that most wars and colonizing movements were started because someone wanted more land. But seldom do they note that the conquerors or colonizers had often ruined their own land before they started to take that of their neighbors. Most writers of current history recognize that the strong and wealthy nations of today are those with abundant natural resources. But, too often, they forget that many of the poor and weak nations once had plenty. They do not note that most of the poor peoples of the earth are poor mainly because their ancestors wasted the natural resources on which present generations must live.

Historical records of the last 6,000 years show that civilized man, with few exceptions, was never able to continue a progressive civilization in one locality for more than thirty to seventy generations (800 to 2,000 years). There were three notable exceptions: the Nile Valley, Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley, which will be discussed later. Aside from these [end p.7] cradles of civilization, however, civilized man’s dominance over his environment lasted only for a few generations. After a few centuries of growth and progress in a favorable environment, his civilizations declined, perished, or were forced to move to new land. The average life span was forty to sixty generations (1,000 to 1,500 years). In most cases, the more brilliant the civilization, the shorter was its progressive existence. These civilizations declined in the same geographical areas that had nurtured them, mainly because man himself despoiled or ruined the environments that helped him develop his civilizations.

How did civilized man despoil his favorable environment? He did it mainly by depleting or destroying the natural resources. He cut down or burned most of the usable timber from the forested hillsides and valleys. He overgrazed and denuded the grasslands that fed his livestock. He killed most of the wildlife and much of the fish and other water life. He permitted erosion to rob his farm land of its productive topsoil. He allowed eroded soil to clog the streams and fill his reservoirs, irrigation canals, and harbors with silt. In many cases, he used or wasted most of the easily mined metals or other needed minerals. Then his civilization declined amidst the despoilation of his own creation or he moved to new land. There have been from ten to thirty different civilizations that have followed this road to ruin (the number depending on who classifies the civilizations).

Of course, man seldom created a complete desert from a formerly fertile land. Sometimes he let the land revert to jungle. Usually, he left enough soil and vegetation to support a meager population of seminomadic herdsmen or peasant farmers. In some cases, he left enough to support a moderate [end p.8] city population. But in no case, to date, has he left enough of the basic natural resources to support a progressive and dynamic civilization.

Historians, in general, do not agree on the specific reasons why civilization has developed and flourished in some regions while lagging or failing to develop in others. A great variety of theories have been advanced. We will not attempt to discuss, or even name, all the theories. They are discussed fully and capably in other historical works.

Let us put it this way: civilization is a condition of mankind coacting with an environment in such a way that progress results. Regardless of the forces that stimulate cultural progress, both civilization and the enjoyment of civilization rest on a surplus production by those who supply the necessities of life. By surplus production, we mean a surplus above the actual needs of the primary producers. A surplus production of food, clothing, shelter, and other necessities by farmers, herders, fishers, loggers, miners, hunters, trappers, and other primary producers is necessary before civilization can start. Furthermore, such surplus production must continue on a relatively stable basis if civilization is to keep advancing. The primary producers must supply a surplus before artisans, designers, engineers, scientists, philosophers, writers, artists, and other civilizers can exist and function. Few people ever advanced civilization while they had to produce their own food, clothing, and shelter directly from the earth.

More than a surplus production by the primary producers is necessary, however, for civilization to develop and progress. Artisans or manufacturers must learn to process many of the raw materials before they are usable by a civilized society. Trade and commerce must be developed to a certain extent [end p.9] before civilization can begin, and they are necessary for civilization to continue: the surplus of the primary producers has little value toward advancing civilization unless it is traded to the potential civilizers. And some form of relatively stable government is necessary for the manufacturers and traders to function.

There are also certain intangibles that enter into the development of civilization and affect its progress. Customs, religion, and many other things may help either to stimulate or to retard civilization. Then there is that elusive factor that, for lack of a better name, we shall call “the will to progress.” Certain groups or nations of men are simply more aggressive than others; they advance civilization under conditions that seem similar to those of other people who stagnate or regress. We will not attempt to analyze fully the reasons for this aggressiveness. Arnold I. Toynbee, in A Study of History, with some plausibility offers his theory of “challenge and response” as a primary cause for the will to progress. Other historians and philosophers offer different theories. You may take your choice. But this will to progress probably depends on good food and good leadership more than on anything else.

All these intangibles and many other factors may play an important part in the development and advancement of civilization, but most of them are conditional-they are positive factors only under certain conditions. There is one requirement of civilization, however, that is not conditional. It is an absolute essential under all conditions. The primary producers must produce a surplus. Without such a surplus there can be no cities.

It is difficult to conceive of a civilization without cities. [end p.10] Granted that some of them are too big to be efficient, or healthful, or sane, but cities of reasonable size are necessary. They are the seats of government, of higher learning, of special training, of manufacturing and distribution, and of stimulation to many lines of creative work. Yet they cannot exist without a constant flow of food and raw materials coming in from the country.

Many people take this flow of surplus goods for granted. They think, “1f a city grows, the farmers will automatically feed it.” The reverse is more accurate. When the farms, forests, and grasslands produce a surplus, the cities automatically grow. When the farmers, herders, woodsmen, and other primary producers fail to produce a surplus, cities wither and die.

The factors that determine the amount of surplus produced by the primary producers largely limit the status of any civilization. These factors are homely fundamentals: the fertility and extent of arable soil, the amount of rain infiltration into the soil, the extent and reproductive success of forests, the quantity and quality of grasslands, the abundance of beneficial wildlife, fish, and water life, the supply of usable water, the abundance of mineral fuels, metals, construction materials, and other deposits in the earth’s crust. These are the natural resources with which the primary producers work. The quantity and quality of these resources largely determine the amount of surplus produced.

A common error has been to consider these resources as static. The proponents of the standard formula, “capital plus labor plus raw materials plus management multiplied by technology equals production,” have nearly always considered raw materials as a constant. But they are not constant. Soil fertility, usable water, forests, grasslands, beneficial wildlife, [end p.11] and other resources have not remained a fixed item in any region. They have decreased in most areas occupied by civilized man. In many of the older countries they have almost disappeared. And with their decrease has nearly always come a decline in civilization.

We repeat: These are not the only factors which deter- mine the status of any given civilization, but they are basic factors which largely limit any civilization.

The first civilizations of mankind were built on irrigated agriculture. This was not because the first farmers used irrigation to water their crops, nor because irrigation was necessary to produce a surplus of food. Primarily it was because the irrigated lands remained productive much longer than did the lands where rainfall furnished the water for crops. A secondary reason was probably the fact that farm production was more dependable on irrigated lands, where drought was not so likely to be catastrophic.

The durability of the land was not of such prime importance in the development of later civilizations. These inherited a substantial part of their civilizing activities from former civilizations, and were able to develop in a few centuries.

But it is a big step from primitive culture to civilization, if made without the aid of civilizing influences from others. The people who developed the first civilizations (in the Nile, Euphrates, and Indus valleys) probably had to farm the same lands for at least one thousand years before they could create a true civilization.

Man probably did his first farming in southwestern Asia, about eight thousand years ago. In this climate of moderate rainfall ( fifteen to thirty inches a year) , he found just the right amounts of rain and sunshine to make farming rela-[end p.12]tively easy. He planted his first crop of emmer, spelt, barley, millet, or wheat and waited around for a season to harvest it. This laid the foundation for civilization by enabling the farmer to grow a surplus of food. Thus he, or someone in his family, had leisure time for activities other than searching for food. It led to a division of labor and to the separation of skills between farmers and artisans.

We don’t know where, when, or how farmers first learned the art and science of irrigation. Probably it was in some of the small valleys that were flooded annually. Possibly it was in the valleys of large rivers that overflowed regularly, such as the Nile, Euphrates, and Indus. Man learned the art of irrigation long before he learned to write and read, probably before he had any form of stable government over a large area, and before he carried on extensive trade. In other words, he was an irrigation farmer several centuries before he was civilized.

Most historians agree that the first civilizations were developed in three regions: the Nile Valley, Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley .All these valleys shared three common factors: (1) the soil was fertile, (2) the water supply was dependable because irrigation was used, and (3) the soil did not wash away because the land was relatively level and the rainfall was scant. All three of these conditions were important, but the third was most important.

The fertile soils and dependable water supply enabled farmers to produce a large surplus of food and insured a continuity of the food supply. Many people were freed to become artisans, indulge in trade, and practice the civilizing arts. The stability of the land made it possible for farmers to farm the same land for many generations. This gave the people an [end p.13] opportunity to settle down and build permanent homes. They were able to develop relatively stable governments and fairly stable channels of trade and commerce. This meant that they were eventually able to build cities.

These first civilizations will be discussed in more detail later. Not only were they the first civilizations of mankind, they were also the most durable, and their durability was due mainly to the durability of the land on which they were built.

Civilization spread from the irrigated valleys to other areas. In most cases, these other areas did not have the conditions that stabilized the Nile Valley, Mesopotamia, and the Indus Valley .The soil was fertile, bur much of the land was sloping, and rainfall furnished the water for crops. When the rains came, they washed away the fertile topsoil from the sloping grainfields, deforested hillsides, and overgrazed grass- lands. The land was often ruined for farming in a few gen- erations. When this happened, the people had to move to new land or eke out an existence on impoverished land. These civilizations declined or perished in a few centuries, as they depleted or exhausted the lands on which they were built.

All across the continent of Asia and into Europe and North Africa, you find the seats of former leading civilizations that are now among the backward areas of the world. You need not. search to find such areas: just call the roll of the ancients, and then look at the lands they lived on, as they are today. You will soon see what the man meant when he said that civilized man has left a desert in his footprints as he moved from place to place across the face of the earth.

Look at western Iran, where the Medes and the Persians prospered; look at northern Iraq, the former home of the Assyrians; look at Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Algeria, and [end p.14] Tunisia, which once supported proud civilizations. Or take Crete, Greece, Italy, Sicily, and parts of Asia Minor as exam- ples; these are the lands from whence our western civilization arose.

Let’s not put total blame for the bareness of these areas on the conquering hordes that repeatedly overran them. True, those conquerors often sacked and razed the cities, burned the villages, and slaughtered or drove off the people who populated them. But while the soil and other resources that built the cities remained J the cities were usually rebuilt. It was only after the land was depleted or exhausted that the fields became barren and the cities remained dead.

Many of the ancients will be discussed in more detail later in order to analyze the causes for their downfall and what happened to their lands. But the rise and fall of most of them can be described in one paragraph because the pattern is much the same for all.

Most of the progressive and dynamic civilizations of man- kind started on new land-on land that had not been the center of a former civilization. Each civilization flourished and grew for a few centuries on the land that gave it birth. The people who evolved it became more and more civilized during this period of growth. Then they found that their native land would no longer support them, so they began to conquer and take the land of some of their neighbors. With the new land thus acquired, they held their gains in civilization for a few more centuries. After they reached their limits of conquest, their civilization began to decline. Eventually it was engulfed by the surrounding barbarians, and a dark age ensued. After that, a new civilization arose on new land among some of the semicivilized barbarians. Then the pattern was repeated. [end p.15] (Chapter continues to p.25, with more on ancient civilizations, and then on modern America.)

top