Ancient Lost Cities Under Water

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Rainbowresidue
Saeftinghe

Location: Netherlands
Sank:
The land around the town was lost in the All Saint's Flood of 1570, and the city was sunk in 1584, during the Eighty Years' War, where Dutch soldiers were forced to destroy the last intact dike around the town.

That's an example - you can't say the city "sank." It's elevation did not go down.

Terminology is everything in this sort of thing because "sinking" cities happen, and "flooded" cities (like this one) also happen.

Harte

Alright, so the city was first flooded by water first, then submerged.
Do you feel any better now?

The city did get covered by water first, and later the city sank(according to all news sources).
People to this day go there and end up with muddy footprints.

But please, do read up on its history and tell us how today we find all those human bones when marching through the mud.



Harte, I'm only reporting facts, there's no fairy tale here.
But if you think this city never sank as reported please prove me and the Netherlands wrong.

originally posted by: Rainbowresidue

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: Rainbowresidue

Saeftinghe



Location: Netherlands

Sank:

The land around the town was lost in the All Saint's Flood of 1570, and the city was sunk in 1584, during the Eighty Years' War, where Dutch soldiers were forced to destroy the last intact dike around the town.

That's an example - you can't say the city "sank." It's elevation did not go down.



Terminology is everything in this sort of thing because "sinking" cities happen, and "flooded" cities (like this one) also happen.



Harte

Alright, so the city was first flooded by water first, then submerged.

Do you feel any better now?

The city did get covered by water first, and later the city sank(according to all news sources).

People to this day go there and end up with muddy footprints.

Did I misread? Didn't your post state that a dike was holding back the water?

That means the city was originally built below sea level, doesn't it?
Then how can that be called "sinking?"

It only matters because every time someplace sinks, it gets turned into Atlantis by the fringe. Given that we have enough "locations" for Atlantis already, including New Jersey, IIRC, it pains me to see a site claimed to have sunk when in fact it didn't.

Also, I've pointed out here at ATS many times that just because a site is found underwater, that does not mean that ice age meltoff caused it to be drowned. That's another one fringies latch onto, using the dates of the last glacial maximum to claim such sites MUST predate civilization.

In this section of the forum, that may not be a big deal, but I spend most of my time in the ancient civ. section, where such craziness is used all the time.


You realize, I hope, that the Netherlands has several areas that were former seafloor but were exposed by human engineering for the express purpose of utilizing the land?
You know, the little Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike, etc.

Correct me if that's not what you were speaking of.

Harte