Soil Formation Theory: A Summary of Its Principal Impacts on Geography, Geomorphology, Soil-Geomorphology, Quaternary Geology and Paleopedology

Conceptual Approaches to Pedogenesis

Soils in Archaeological Research ◽

10.1093/oso/9780195149654.003.0006 ◽

2004 ◽

Author(s):

Vance T. Holliday

Keyword(s):

Process Model ◽

Soil Formation ◽

Site Formation ◽

Biogeochemical Processes ◽

Pedogenic Process ◽

Soil Geomorphology ◽

Multiple Process ◽

The Many ◽

Soil Forming Processes ◽

State Factor

To fully appreciate and apply pedologic principals in archaeology, some of the theoretical underpinnings of pedology and especially soil geomorphology must be outlined. Pedologists and soil geomorphologists have attempted to describe, if not model, the processes of soil formation, the factors that drive the processes, and the evolution of soils as landscapes evolve (summarized by Smeck et al., 1983; Johnson and Watson-Stegner, 1987; and Gerrard, 1992, pp. 1–50, 217–220). The task is a difficult one, however, because of the complex and variable sets of processes responsible for soil development. Several of the resulting approaches have proven useful for conceptualizing pedogenesis and, more important, for interpreting soils. In addition to understanding soil-forming processes for interpreting soil profiles, understanding soil formation is important for understanding site formation. The conceptual approaches particularly useful in soil geomorphic and geoarchaeological research are summarized below. Soil-forming processes as components of site formation are discussed more fully in chapter 10. The following discussions of conceptual approaches to pedogenesis are roughly arranged in order of increasing complexity. The “multiple-process model” is essentially a categorization of soil-forming processes. It does not explain pedogenesis but is a useful way to sort and group the many soil-forming processes. The “state factor” approach and the “K-cycle” concept do not deal directly with soil formation, but instead focus on important external factors and processes that drive or affect pedogenesis such as climate and geomorphic evolution. The “soil evolution” model and the “new global view of soils” attempt to integrate pedogenic process with landscape evolution, climate, and other factors. This section closes with discussion of two important aspects of pedogenesis and pedogenic pathways that offer caveats in the use of soils for reconstructing the past. Soils are the result of biogeochemical processes determined and driven by the ecosystem (following Buol et al., 1997). This relationship is more simply described as “internal soil-forming processes” driven by “external soil-forming factors” (fig. 3.1; after Buol et al., 1984). A useful approach to categorizing the many and varied internal soil-forming processes responsible for pedogenesis is the multiple-process model of Simonson (1959, 1978).

Download Full-text

Soil endemism and its relation to soil formation theory

Geoderma ◽

10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.12.044 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 129 (3-4) ◽

pp. 109-124 ◽

Cited By ~ 42

Author(s):

James G. Bockheim

Keyword(s):

Soil Formation ◽

Formation Theory

Download Full-text

Soils and Paleoenvironmental Reconstructions

Soils in Archaeological Research ◽

10.1093/oso/9780195149654.003.0011 ◽

2004 ◽

Author(s):

Vance T. Holliday

Keyword(s):

Soil Formation ◽

The United States ◽

Environmental Indicators ◽

Archaeological Research ◽

Wide Range ◽

Soil Geomorphology ◽

Relationship Of ◽

The Relationship ◽

State Factor ◽

Paleoenvironmental Indicators

One of the earliest uses of soils in archaeological research, in addition to stratigraphic markers, was as paleoenvironmental indicators. Similar to soil stratigraphy, the use of soils as environmental indicators in archaeological research probably has its roots in Quaternary geology (e.g., Leighton, 1937; Bryan, 1941a, 1948; Bryan and Albritton, 1943; Movius, 1944; Ruhe, 1965; Haynes, 1968; Valentine and Dalrymple, 1976). Quaternary geologists and geomorphologists working with archaeologists were quick to use soils as clues to past environments (e.g., Leighton, 1936; Antevs, 1941; Bryan, 1941a; Hopkins and Giddings, 1953; Haynes, 1968). Likewise, the nature of prehistoric environments has long been a fundamental question in archaeology. Recognition of the relationship of soil development and morphology to environmental conditions goes back to the beginning of modern pedology, in the later 19th century in Russia and in the early 20th century in the United States (Thorp, 1941, 1949; Tandarich and Sprecher, 1994; Johnson and Hole, 1994). Climate and vegetation in particular were understood as important soil-forming factors long before Jenny produced his landmark volume on Factors of Soil Formation (1941). What Jenny (1941, 1980) brought to the discussion was a theoretical means, using the state factor approach, of assessing the effect of vegetation and climate on soils. By understanding these relationships via biosequences or climosequences, we are theoretically able to pick out the morphological and chemical characteristics of soils that are linked to climate or to vegetation. Climate most directly influences pedogenesis through precipitation and temperature and influences pedogenesis indirectly through vegetation. The most direct effects of biota probably come from the addition of a wide range of chemical compounds, from bioturbation, and from rooting. This chapter is a discussion of those characteristics of soils that have some utility for environmental reconstructions, including climate and vegetation estimates. The chapter also includes some discussion of the potential pitfalls in using soils as paleoenvironmental indicators. Longer and more in-depth discussions of soil–environment relationships in the context of soil geomorphology or environmental reconstruction are presented by Birkeland (1999, pp. 268–306) and chapters in Wilding et al. (1983b) and Martini and Chesworth (1992, pp. 155–306).

Download Full-text

Soils and Time

Soils in Archaeological Research ◽

10.1093/oso/9780195149654.003.0010 ◽

2004 ◽

Author(s):

Vance T. Holliday

Keyword(s):

Soil Formation ◽

Parent Material ◽

Radiometric Dating ◽

Five Factors ◽

Soil Geomorphology ◽

Subsequent Section ◽

Soil Forming Processes ◽

Pedogenic Processes ◽

State Factor ◽

Geomorphic Processes

The influence of time on soil formation is a unique characteristic of pedogenesis among geomorphic processes that, like lateral variability, serves to distinguish soils and soil-forming processes from other geomorphic phenomena. Another unique aspect of time is that, among the five factors of soil formation, it does not contribute directly to soil formation. However, the passage of time allows the various pedogenic processes operating at a given location to alter the parent material and produce a soil. The physical, chemical, and biological processes of soil formation generally are much slower than many, if not most, processes of sedimentation and erosion. Moreover, most soil-forming processes are so slow that their effect on the soil is markedly time dependent (Birkeland, 1999, p. 144). Time as a factor of soil formation is a key concept in soil geomorphology and has driven much soil geomorphic research (Yaalon, 1975, 1983; Knuepfer and McFadden, 1990; Birkeland, 1999). Because time is also a key consideration of much archaeological research, the time-factor concept of soil genesis can likewise play a significant role in geoarchaeological research (Holliday, 1990a, 1992a). The concept that some time must elapse before a soil can form is arguably one of the most significant aspects of soil development in an archaeological context. This chapter is a discussion of some approaches to the issue of time in archaeology, using soils. The first section is a look at the archaeological implications of soils as indicators of stable landscapes and stratigraphic discontinuities. A number of case histories are presented. The validity of intersite and intrasite archaeological correlations using soils and interpretations of archaeological assemblages associated with soils are profoundly dependent on recognition of soils as depositional hiatuses. The subsequent section reviews the concept of the soil chronosequence and its use in archaeological dating. This is one of the most widely applied aspects of Jenny’s state factor approach to soil geomorphology, and it has considerable potential in archaeology. The last part of the chapter is a discussion of the radiometric dating of pedogenic features.

Download Full-text