Talk:Salting the earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Scorched or burned
Isn't it "scorched earth" rather than "burned earth"? --Brion
- Heh. agreed. Just fixed. mimirzero
[edit] Carthage
Pasting discussion from Talk:Carthage I think it could be useful. Ericd 19:55, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- Is the story about salting the land around Carthage true? I have also read that is more of a legend than truth...they actually just threw a handful of salt on the ground to symbolize that no one would be allowed to live there after it was destroyed. (Now I'll have to see if I can find where I read that...) Adam Bishop 00:35, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I have no reference about it but it's not impossible after all lake Tunis is a salt lake and it's not that far. Ericd 10:19, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The case, for me, is made not so much on the impossibility of the act (the argument that "the Romans wouldn't do it because salt was precious"), but on the fact that no ancient source for the salting has ever been found. A very strong case has been made that the entire incident can be traced back to a history text from the late 19th century, and has been propagated from there ever since. The fact that a new city was established in essentially the exact same location only a little while later (and then designated the capital of Roman Africa) also suggests that the land was not permanently ruined. :Justin Bacon 16:53, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I have no special skills in history. If there is no source before the 19th is probably mythical. For what I know about the geography the region I think is that the economic argument as presented on that page [[1]] is a wrong view. The only valid question to see if that was possible is how many people, how many chariots and how many time to carry free salt from lake Tunis? You know there is an article Salting the earth maybe we could incorporate this debate in? Ericd 06:23, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Salting just the pomerium
Part of the Roman ritual for founding a city was to plough a furrow, the pomerium, around the city limits. There were some things one could and couldn't do within this city limit, e.g., no burials within, only outside. The city gods were only responsible to bless up to this line, etc. Think of it as an ancient zoning ordinance. The pomerium would have to be renewed and the city purified every five years. This is called lustration.
There was a variant of the lustral ceremony for revoking a city's status and part of the ritual was to plough salt into the pomerium. Sewing salt wasn't to sterilize the land, it was to destroy the city and its connection to its tutelary deities. I imagine this is what the Romans had in mind in Carthage. And when they refounded the city a few years later, no doubt they ploughed an inaugural furrow for the occasion. --Fulminouscherub 02:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
This might be a valid point, except for the obvious point that the sources don't mention the Romans doing this. They don't mention salt at all. The timeline proposed for the salting story by Ridley, Stevens, Visona, and Warmington, among others, seems a good deal more likely.
[edit] Why are the salts that poured in the streets after a snow doesn't kill plant life?
Why are the salts that poured in the streets after a snow doesn't kill plant life?
Cause there's asphalt there. Also, weeds are pretty hardy.
[edit] Portugal
[edit] Stone memorial of the Aveiro's shame
One point is unclear. Does the monument contain English text, or is the text presented a translation? The sentence just says, in parentheses, that it is in English. Maybe I'm just missing the obvious. I assume it's a translation just from common sense, but it's a little unclear. 08:30, 22 May 2006 65.24.138.72
- It's a translation. I translated it. The original can be seen in Duke of Aveiro, and it says: Aqui foram arrasadas e salgadas as casas de José Mascarenhas, exautorado das honras de Duque de Aveiro e outras condemnado por sentença proferida na Suprema Juncta de Inconfidencia em 12 de Janeiro de 1759. Justiçado como um dos chefes do barbaro e execrando desacato que na noite de 3 de Septembro de 1758 se havia commetido contra a real e sagrada pessoa de D.José I. Neste terreno infame se não poderá edificar em tempo algum. The Ogre 14:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Salting to expel evil
Portuguese tradition of slating the Earth, is mainly in a view to expel evil and not to destroy plantation per se. It was very common to do so in houses suspected to be haunted. Psyllis 16:19, 21 Septmeber 2006 (CET)
- That is fascinating, I wonder if this belief derives from 2 Kings 2:21 ? (While looking this up I found a bonafide reference in Judges to sowing a rebellious city with salt, that I just now added to the article!) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's interesting. But, not doubting you, what are your sources? The Ogre 14:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Picture
Changed the text under the picture (Why is the garaffiti so important?) but would like to request a new picture for this article, perferably a picture of this activity actually being carried out, such as an anincet scroll, carving, or woodcut. -- Raveled
[edit] Effectiveness
If the salt refered to common salt, NaCl, then I do not think salting the soil would be capable of preventing plant growth for long. Salt is after all highly soluble and needed in relatively high concentrations to damage plants; precipitation will rapidly wash it away. A few years ago a large quantity (maybe 50 kg) of salt intended for keeping roads free of snow was dumped near our house on a grassy verge near a hedge. The vegetation nearby rapidly wilted and died, but within a year had regrown. In a drier climate no doubt the salt would take longer to leach away, but I find it hard to believe that lands in the Soviet Union could have been salted no earlier than summer 1941 and still be unusable in 1944. It is not inconceivable that lands may have been salted out of desperation where salt happened to be available, but I fail to see it being a practical strategy in general because of the ammount of salt that would be needed. Booshank 16:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Roman predecessors, the Assyrians??
Someone care to explain how the Assyrians are the predecessors to Rome? Their sphere of influence never extended to Italy... look at the web page for Assyrian. Anyone have a problem if I reword it to just say that it was a practice used by the Assyrians? Vargob 17:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
- I wrote that, because as powerful Empire the Assyrians were certainly predecessors of the Romans, as well as in the strictly chronological sense, without having had to cover the same geographic ground. The meaning of the word predecessor usually refers to time, not space. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I did a double-take when I saw "predecessors" as well. I move the Assyrian section up in the article because the first example given shouldn't be one that is now thought to be fabricated. Plus, they seem to have the earliest example of the practice (1290 BC). Tocharianne 14:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Josephus
Didn't Josephus mention the Romans salting the area around Jerusalen when it was sacked? Banaticus 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "poured into the land"
...Shouldn't it be "poured onto the land"? --Scyrma 19:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Salt dissipation
How long would it take for the land to be viable again? I don't recall the exact sources, but I think I heard somewhere that some places that were salted in wars 5,000 years ago are still unviable. Not all, I'll grant it's possible for the salt to be washed away under the right conditions, but...not everywhere might have those conditions.
[edit] New Source on Carthage?
For the benefit of those of us who do not have immediate access to your source, would you please share exactly what you have that so conclusively demonstrates the story of Rome salting Carthage was unheard of until the 20th Century??? I bet I even have some 19th century history books in my collection right now where I could find it mentioned. The previous version of the article said the story first appears in the Middle Ages, so it just seems like a dramatic shift to suddenly proclaim that the case is closed on the strength of one new author whose words aren't quoted. What exactly does this source say that you found so convincing? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)