3 ms·
That is something I have always been skeptical of as well. We know that salt was an extremely precious commodity in the ancient world. It seems like an extrem
by ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
That is something I have always been skeptical of as well.
We know that salt was an extremely precious commodity in the ancient world.
It seems like an extreme waste of wealth to ruin fields for the future generations of people you have already killed.
- Retric 9y agoUsing ocean water could 'work', though transportation would be more problematic unless you where figuratively destroying a small garden or something. It's presumably just as effective, and vastly cheaper. PS: Salt was expensive because of transaction and transpiration issues plus the need for a lot of land as water only evaporates at ~1/8th inch of water per day. So at 3.5% concentration that's ~4/1,000th of an inch of salt per day. But, having soil absorb sea water would likely work just as well.
- ptero 9y agoAs someone said, ocean water is all you need. My history knowledge is basic at best, but as far as I know ruining fields was exactly part of the Romans' goal to ensure that no city gets rebuilt there again (Delenda est Carthago).
- emodendroket 9y agoI don't see how the evidence supports your conclusion.