On Thu, 25 Jun 1998, you wrote:
> John wrote:
> >I didn't want to enter this discussion but as a geologist I am puzzled by
> >your statement on the source of salt in the soils.
> >>There was enough salt washed out of the Armenian mountains in the
> >>irrigation process to increase the salinity of early cities to where
> >>the soil would no longer support crops. Early Eridu was abandoned after
> >>a few hundred years for that reason. This suggests that the mountains
> >>were also submerged, thus the salt, and that in turn suggests, perhaps,
> >>an earlier date for the submersion of Southern Mesopotamia than you
> >>proposed. Not criticizing, just exploring.
> >I do not understand why the salt in the soil suggests that the mountains
> >were submerged.
> I was thinking of salt evaporites that are formed when sea water is
> trapped and forms salt beds when the water is gone. Salt had to
> get into the hills somehow, and that is one possible way. But by all
> means, you geologists are better equipped to address that.
> Dick Fischer, The Origins Solution - http://www.orisol.com
> "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
I explained in my original post that the salts come about by chemical
weathering of the minerals in the drainage basin and are carried away
in solution. Some of the salts may have originated also in salt beds
which are exposed at the surface or by saline springs. But I still do not
know where you get the idea that the uplands of the region were submerged
beneath sea water, where is the evidence.