This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Salting the earth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Isn't it "scorched earth" rather than "burned earth"? -- Brion
Pasting discussion from Talk:Carthage I think it could be useful. Ericd 19:55, 9 May 2005 (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)
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.
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.
It does, less salt is used for example, on bridges over shallow waterways, to prevent plant damage 76.255.10.142 ( talk) 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
The article text states that "the last known event of this sort was the destruction of the Duke of Aveiro's palace in Lisbon in 1759." It may have been so in Portugal itself, but in Brazil - then a Portuguese colony - part of the punishment imposed on Tiradentes, considered the leader of the failed seditious movement called the Inconfidência Mineira in 1789, consisted of salting the earth where his house had stood.
This was ordered in a 1792 document called the Autos da Devassa (very loosely translated, "Investigation Report," though it was actually the final sentence of the rebels' trial), and it is not an obscure scholarly subject: all Brazilian children learn that at school in their History classes.
It is not clear whether the salting was actually carried out (maybe not, because at that time salt was very scarce and expensive in the far-inland mountainous area of Minas Gerais, where the events took place), but this shows that the practice of salting the earth of convicted traitors' property was at least considered current in the Portuguese empire three decades after the Duke of Aveiro's former palace property was salted.
As a quick off-topic humorous side note (OK, maybe black humor...), in the curious language of the time, the Autos da Devassa also sentenced Tiradentes to "die of a natural death by hanging" (que morra de morte natural na forca) - which of course makes Brazilian schoolchildren burst into laughter when hearing that... :-)
-- UrsoBR ( talk) 10:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
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
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 amount of salt that would be needed. Booshank 16:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I think... how the heck would mere salt prevent plant growth for a long period of time? -- Luigifan 22:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Plus, salt was one of the most valuable goods at that time, more expensive than silver. From that point of view, especially since silver is a lot more toxic than salt and doesn't wash out, "silvering" the land would make much more sense. Very likely salt was used by medieval writers/translators as a more dramatic periphrasis, due to its alleged magical abilities.
I came across this article [2] on a recently 'salted field' in Louisiana. Apparently seawater from hurricane Katrina in 2005 destroyed the land's ability to harvest certain crops like rice. However the land should be reusable in 2010. The article states that some farmers are switching to more 'salt tolerant' crops, suggesting that not all crops are equally affected by high concentration of salt in the soil. -- A.Moore ( talk) 06:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I edited a sentence thus "The custom of purifying or consecrating a destroyed city and cursing anyone who dared to rebuild it was widespread in the ancient Near East, and the sowing of salt was intended to be environmentally damaging. Kildwyke ( talk) 04:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I’m sorry you had to revert my edit. I did read this talk page before I edited but proceeded because I agreed with 15 other writers there. But thank you, Macrakis, for reminding us of the difference between literalism and symbolism. Don’t you think there must be something in the article that provokes the same wrong response in all 16? We must fix it, for I see (above) that this is a recurring problem for you. I am sure the cause of our misunderstanding lies in the second sentence: “…but it is unclear what part the sowing of salt has in the process” for that part of the sentence is written in the present tense, and seems to be asking us what we think nowadays! So it needs to be made clear that what you would like to know is what the ancients thought/felt back then. 1. Changing “has” to “had” would be a good start. 2. My next proposal is to change “it is” into the past; in this way: “… but historical accounts are unclear as to what part the sowing of salt had in the process." 3. Further, to remind the materialistic reader that we are talking of metaphors: “… but historical accounts are unclear as to what the sowing of salt meant in that process.” Please let me know if you agree with any of these proposals Kildwyke ( talk) 04:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I think a short section on whether the salting was actually effective would be beneficial to this article. Zarcadia ( talk) 23:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's relevant to at least briefly address what effect salting the earth either has, was believed to have, or is symbolic of. Surely, at least a mention of the reason why the earth is sometimes salted is relevant. Even if it's just pure symbolism, the reason for the symbolism has to come from somewhere. Like Zarcadia, I was under the impression that people believed that salting the earth prevented plant growth. If that belief is really the origin of the practice, then it at least deserves mention, as the origin of the practice being discussed is highly relevant. I understand that a detailed discussion on the effectiveness of salting the earth to prevent crop growth belongs in a separate article on soil salinity, but there's a difference between saying "they're different issues deserving separate articles" and taking the stance that they are completely unrelated and irrelevant to each other, which, Macrakis, your arguments are dangerously close to. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth if that's not what you're getting at. All I'm saying is let's at least address what's relevant here. Minaker ( talk) 10:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Macrakis, I guess we're in agreement and I didn't even realize it. I was under the impression that we (and by "we," I mean the modern era) knew the reason for salting the earth, but you were opposed to including that information because you felt that it belonged in a separate article. But it looks like I was mistaken, and I completely agree with you that pure speculation would count as OR. Thank you for clarifying, the misunderstanding was mine. Minaker ( talk) 04:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Macrakis, like Many others I find the article stretches credulity in proposing that there is no reliable source to indicate the purpose of sowing the earth with salt. For starters, side references to Biblical content are treated as no references at all.
It is CLEAR that the intent was punitive and, if believed to be purely symbolic, then clearly symbolic of sterility.
KJV
"Deu 29:23 [And that] the whole land thereof [is] brimstone, and salt, [and] burning, [that] it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath: Deu 29:24 Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this land? what [meaneth] the heat of this great anger?"
The Shechem story you refer to is also abundantly clear that the object is not to consecrate, but to desecrate.
"Jdg 9:45 And Abimelech fought against the city all that day; and he took the city, and slew the people that [was] therein, and beat down the city, and sowed it with salt."
The reason the "lay" belief has survived for a couple of thousand years is not seriously a matter of Original Research, and qualifies surely for at least an accurate reportage that the act of sowing salt was a desecration symbolically making the soil sterile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.209.4 ( talk) 00:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
There is widespread belief that this was actually effective. Whether that belief is refuted or simply dubious, it's a common belief and should be addressed. 162.218.214.1 ( talk) 18:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Can I point out that this article does not mention the actual reason for salting the earth - preventing crops to grow. It's only hinted at. 86.4.48.114 ( talk) 13:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)marten
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)
Didn't Josephus mention the Romans salting the area around Jerusalen when it was sacked? Banaticus 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
...Shouldn't it be "poured onto the land"? -- Scyrma 19:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
In a drier climate it would take longer, but I cannot imagine it would take that long. Booshank 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Do Note that they don't just sprinkle salt, they plow it in. I would like to know the right amount of time, but then again 5000 years is impossible because northern Italy hasn't any scars from Carthage.
I dont want to look smart but what is the annual production of sea water? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurorebel ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
Would it be okay to meantion this practice since people do it to prevent snow from piling up on the ground? VoltronForce 09:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[ Off-topic disruptions deleted per per WP:TALK Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Editors such as Tenmei, who have admitted they have no knowledge in this area and nothing to contribute, try to disrupt the article Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty and attempting to delete any attempt to improve coverage of the topic of the article. This disruptive behavior is highly violative of wikipedia rules, and warrants intervention if it continues. Teeninvestor ( talk) 20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added several sources to the article and reorganized it a bit. -- macrakis ( talk) 22:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The sentence featuring the current footnote 8 claims that the first reference to the Roman salting of Carthage began in the 19th century, but the sentence of footnote 11 (citing the pope in 1299) specifically refers to the Roman model of salting Carthage. This is inconsistent, and should be resolved if possible. (unsigned)
I read: ...also we ordered to drop salt, so that nothing, not even name nor any title be of that city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurorebel ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The article reads this:
"Various modern sources claim that the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus Africanus plowed over and sowed the city of Carthage with salt after defeating it in the Third Punic War (146 BC), sacking it, and forcing the survivors into slavery. However, no ancient source mentions this; the first references to the Roman salting of Carthage are found in the late 19th century,[8] making it likely that the story is a later invention, modelled on the story of Shechem.[9] The ritual of symbolically drawing a plow over the site of a city is, however, mentioned in ancient sources, though not in reference to Carthage specifically.[10]
When Pope Boniface VIII destroyed Palestrina in 1299, he ordered it plowed "following the old example of Carthage in Africa", and also salted.[11]"
If Pope Boniface VIII ordered it plowed "following the old example of Carthage in Africa" and salted the land, wouldn't the salt story be more than a 19th century legend? Would that not mean that this legend was around in the 13th Century, if not earlier? There's something being overlooked here. Either Pope Boniface VIII never said that, or Carthage was actually salted. In any case, one of the two things need to be removed. Either the part about the legend, or the part about the pope.
Guys, IMO this section reads very poorly and has remained without any sources backing it up since 21-Nov-09. That's just too long, and I believe this section should be removed in its entirety. Tgm1024 ( talk) 00:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"The story is a later invention, modelled on the story of Shechem." This is cited, but I think we should say "According to Ridley, the story is..."; I agree it is a later development, but how can we -- or Ridley -- possibly know that it is 'modeled on the story of Shechem'? It seems likely that it's a misinterpretation of what Boniface VIII said about plowing Palestrina "after the example of ancient Carthage in Africa" and sowing salt. 165.91.189.35 ( talk) 23:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The opening paragraph says that salting the earth was "unfeasible for herbicidal warfare". Presumably it is talking about salting the earth as a military strategy during the middle ages being apocryphal (it's not entirely clear, and nothing in the article suggests that it ever really has been feasible). The article on Scorched earth (and the article on the Second Boer War) seem to indicate that it was definitely used during the Second Boer War as part of the "scorched earth" strategy employed under Kitchener. Here is the incomplete sentence mentioning it:
If that is true, then that would seem worth mentioning here, especially if it represents the first time a nation really had the resources available to use it on any real scale. Or if it wasn't very effective, that would be worth mentioning as well :-) Jun-Dai ( talk) 20:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
On an episode of The Simpsons Homer salts the earth of his neighbor Flanders. PortlandOregon97217 ( talk) 08:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Salting the earth is also one of the main tropes in Supernatural_(U.S._TV_series) 198.228.228.175 ( talk) 21:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Collin237
According to a study by UN University, about 62 million hectares (20%) of the world's irrigated lands are already affected of salty soil, up from 45 million hectares in the early 1990s. [2] In the Indo-Gangetic Plain, home to over 10% of the world's population, crop yield losses for wheat, rice, sugarcane and cotton grown on salt-affected lands could be 40%, 45%, 48%, and 63%, respectively. [2]-- Neurorebel ( talk) 04:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
physorg102014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).My addition of a current incidence of salting departs from the historic nature of the page. Was a "public property" heading the right way to go? Or is something like "Modern times" better? KarenJoyce ( talk) 15:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Salting the earth article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Isn't it "scorched earth" rather than "burned earth"? -- Brion
Pasting discussion from Talk:Carthage I think it could be useful. Ericd 19:55, 9 May 2005 (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)
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.
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.
It does, less salt is used for example, on bridges over shallow waterways, to prevent plant damage 76.255.10.142 ( talk) 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
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
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)
The article text states that "the last known event of this sort was the destruction of the Duke of Aveiro's palace in Lisbon in 1759." It may have been so in Portugal itself, but in Brazil - then a Portuguese colony - part of the punishment imposed on Tiradentes, considered the leader of the failed seditious movement called the Inconfidência Mineira in 1789, consisted of salting the earth where his house had stood.
This was ordered in a 1792 document called the Autos da Devassa (very loosely translated, "Investigation Report," though it was actually the final sentence of the rebels' trial), and it is not an obscure scholarly subject: all Brazilian children learn that at school in their History classes.
It is not clear whether the salting was actually carried out (maybe not, because at that time salt was very scarce and expensive in the far-inland mountainous area of Minas Gerais, where the events took place), but this shows that the practice of salting the earth of convicted traitors' property was at least considered current in the Portuguese empire three decades after the Duke of Aveiro's former palace property was salted.
As a quick off-topic humorous side note (OK, maybe black humor...), in the curious language of the time, the Autos da Devassa also sentenced Tiradentes to "die of a natural death by hanging" (que morra de morte natural na forca) - which of course makes Brazilian schoolchildren burst into laughter when hearing that... :-)
-- UrsoBR ( talk) 10:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
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
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 amount of salt that would be needed. Booshank 16:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I think... how the heck would mere salt prevent plant growth for a long period of time? -- Luigifan 22:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Plus, salt was one of the most valuable goods at that time, more expensive than silver. From that point of view, especially since silver is a lot more toxic than salt and doesn't wash out, "silvering" the land would make much more sense. Very likely salt was used by medieval writers/translators as a more dramatic periphrasis, due to its alleged magical abilities.
I came across this article [2] on a recently 'salted field' in Louisiana. Apparently seawater from hurricane Katrina in 2005 destroyed the land's ability to harvest certain crops like rice. However the land should be reusable in 2010. The article states that some farmers are switching to more 'salt tolerant' crops, suggesting that not all crops are equally affected by high concentration of salt in the soil. -- A.Moore ( talk) 06:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I edited a sentence thus "The custom of purifying or consecrating a destroyed city and cursing anyone who dared to rebuild it was widespread in the ancient Near East, and the sowing of salt was intended to be environmentally damaging. Kildwyke ( talk) 04:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I’m sorry you had to revert my edit. I did read this talk page before I edited but proceeded because I agreed with 15 other writers there. But thank you, Macrakis, for reminding us of the difference between literalism and symbolism. Don’t you think there must be something in the article that provokes the same wrong response in all 16? We must fix it, for I see (above) that this is a recurring problem for you. I am sure the cause of our misunderstanding lies in the second sentence: “…but it is unclear what part the sowing of salt has in the process” for that part of the sentence is written in the present tense, and seems to be asking us what we think nowadays! So it needs to be made clear that what you would like to know is what the ancients thought/felt back then. 1. Changing “has” to “had” would be a good start. 2. My next proposal is to change “it is” into the past; in this way: “… but historical accounts are unclear as to what part the sowing of salt had in the process." 3. Further, to remind the materialistic reader that we are talking of metaphors: “… but historical accounts are unclear as to what the sowing of salt meant in that process.” Please let me know if you agree with any of these proposals Kildwyke ( talk) 04:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I think a short section on whether the salting was actually effective would be beneficial to this article. Zarcadia ( talk) 23:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's relevant to at least briefly address what effect salting the earth either has, was believed to have, or is symbolic of. Surely, at least a mention of the reason why the earth is sometimes salted is relevant. Even if it's just pure symbolism, the reason for the symbolism has to come from somewhere. Like Zarcadia, I was under the impression that people believed that salting the earth prevented plant growth. If that belief is really the origin of the practice, then it at least deserves mention, as the origin of the practice being discussed is highly relevant. I understand that a detailed discussion on the effectiveness of salting the earth to prevent crop growth belongs in a separate article on soil salinity, but there's a difference between saying "they're different issues deserving separate articles" and taking the stance that they are completely unrelated and irrelevant to each other, which, Macrakis, your arguments are dangerously close to. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth if that's not what you're getting at. All I'm saying is let's at least address what's relevant here. Minaker ( talk) 10:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Macrakis, I guess we're in agreement and I didn't even realize it. I was under the impression that we (and by "we," I mean the modern era) knew the reason for salting the earth, but you were opposed to including that information because you felt that it belonged in a separate article. But it looks like I was mistaken, and I completely agree with you that pure speculation would count as OR. Thank you for clarifying, the misunderstanding was mine. Minaker ( talk) 04:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Macrakis, like Many others I find the article stretches credulity in proposing that there is no reliable source to indicate the purpose of sowing the earth with salt. For starters, side references to Biblical content are treated as no references at all.
It is CLEAR that the intent was punitive and, if believed to be purely symbolic, then clearly symbolic of sterility.
KJV
"Deu 29:23 [And that] the whole land thereof [is] brimstone, and salt, [and] burning, [that] it is not sown, nor beareth, nor any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of Sodom, and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger, and in his wrath: Deu 29:24 Even all nations shall say, Wherefore hath the LORD done thus unto this land? what [meaneth] the heat of this great anger?"
The Shechem story you refer to is also abundantly clear that the object is not to consecrate, but to desecrate.
"Jdg 9:45 And Abimelech fought against the city all that day; and he took the city, and slew the people that [was] therein, and beat down the city, and sowed it with salt."
The reason the "lay" belief has survived for a couple of thousand years is not seriously a matter of Original Research, and qualifies surely for at least an accurate reportage that the act of sowing salt was a desecration symbolically making the soil sterile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.201.209.4 ( talk) 00:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
There is widespread belief that this was actually effective. Whether that belief is refuted or simply dubious, it's a common belief and should be addressed. 162.218.214.1 ( talk) 18:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Can I point out that this article does not mention the actual reason for salting the earth - preventing crops to grow. It's only hinted at. 86.4.48.114 ( talk) 13:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)marten
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)
Didn't Josephus mention the Romans salting the area around Jerusalen when it was sacked? Banaticus 22:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
...Shouldn't it be "poured onto the land"? -- Scyrma 19:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
In a drier climate it would take longer, but I cannot imagine it would take that long. Booshank 21:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Do Note that they don't just sprinkle salt, they plow it in. I would like to know the right amount of time, but then again 5000 years is impossible because northern Italy hasn't any scars from Carthage.
I dont want to look smart but what is the annual production of sea water? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurorebel ( talk • contribs) 04:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
Would it be okay to meantion this practice since people do it to prevent snow from piling up on the ground? VoltronForce 09:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[ Off-topic disruptions deleted per per WP:TALK Til Eulenspiegel ( talk) 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Editors such as Tenmei, who have admitted they have no knowledge in this area and nothing to contribute, try to disrupt the article Inner Asia during the Tang dynasty and attempting to delete any attempt to improve coverage of the topic of the article. This disruptive behavior is highly violative of wikipedia rules, and warrants intervention if it continues. Teeninvestor ( talk) 20:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I have added several sources to the article and reorganized it a bit. -- macrakis ( talk) 22:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The sentence featuring the current footnote 8 claims that the first reference to the Roman salting of Carthage began in the 19th century, but the sentence of footnote 11 (citing the pope in 1299) specifically refers to the Roman model of salting Carthage. This is inconsistent, and should be resolved if possible. (unsigned)
I read: ...also we ordered to drop salt, so that nothing, not even name nor any title be of that city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurorebel ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The article reads this:
"Various modern sources claim that the Roman general Scipio Aemilianus Africanus plowed over and sowed the city of Carthage with salt after defeating it in the Third Punic War (146 BC), sacking it, and forcing the survivors into slavery. However, no ancient source mentions this; the first references to the Roman salting of Carthage are found in the late 19th century,[8] making it likely that the story is a later invention, modelled on the story of Shechem.[9] The ritual of symbolically drawing a plow over the site of a city is, however, mentioned in ancient sources, though not in reference to Carthage specifically.[10]
When Pope Boniface VIII destroyed Palestrina in 1299, he ordered it plowed "following the old example of Carthage in Africa", and also salted.[11]"
If Pope Boniface VIII ordered it plowed "following the old example of Carthage in Africa" and salted the land, wouldn't the salt story be more than a 19th century legend? Would that not mean that this legend was around in the 13th Century, if not earlier? There's something being overlooked here. Either Pope Boniface VIII never said that, or Carthage was actually salted. In any case, one of the two things need to be removed. Either the part about the legend, or the part about the pope.
Guys, IMO this section reads very poorly and has remained without any sources backing it up since 21-Nov-09. That's just too long, and I believe this section should be removed in its entirety. Tgm1024 ( talk) 00:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
"The story is a later invention, modelled on the story of Shechem." This is cited, but I think we should say "According to Ridley, the story is..."; I agree it is a later development, but how can we -- or Ridley -- possibly know that it is 'modeled on the story of Shechem'? It seems likely that it's a misinterpretation of what Boniface VIII said about plowing Palestrina "after the example of ancient Carthage in Africa" and sowing salt. 165.91.189.35 ( talk) 23:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The opening paragraph says that salting the earth was "unfeasible for herbicidal warfare". Presumably it is talking about salting the earth as a military strategy during the middle ages being apocryphal (it's not entirely clear, and nothing in the article suggests that it ever really has been feasible). The article on Scorched earth (and the article on the Second Boer War) seem to indicate that it was definitely used during the Second Boer War as part of the "scorched earth" strategy employed under Kitchener. Here is the incomplete sentence mentioning it:
If that is true, then that would seem worth mentioning here, especially if it represents the first time a nation really had the resources available to use it on any real scale. Or if it wasn't very effective, that would be worth mentioning as well :-) Jun-Dai ( talk) 20:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
On an episode of The Simpsons Homer salts the earth of his neighbor Flanders. PortlandOregon97217 ( talk) 08:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Salting the earth is also one of the main tropes in Supernatural_(U.S._TV_series) 198.228.228.175 ( talk) 21:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)Collin237
According to a study by UN University, about 62 million hectares (20%) of the world's irrigated lands are already affected of salty soil, up from 45 million hectares in the early 1990s. [2] In the Indo-Gangetic Plain, home to over 10% of the world's population, crop yield losses for wheat, rice, sugarcane and cotton grown on salt-affected lands could be 40%, 45%, 48%, and 63%, respectively. [2]-- Neurorebel ( talk) 04:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
physorg102014
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).My addition of a current incidence of salting departs from the historic nature of the page. Was a "public property" heading the right way to go? Or is something like "Modern times" better? KarenJoyce ( talk) 15:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)