that was a remarkably POORLY written article..even by wikipedia standards.
I wonder why the author felt the need to be so repetitive.
oddly enough...most other places in the world the sea level was 400 ft lower..why was sundaland so different?
The region is seismically very active. While generally sea level has risen 400 feet, the actual difference is modulated regionally by tectonics and rebound, and all sorts of things.
I don't even want to contemplate crustal shifting, as that just makes everything we think we know about tectonics somewhat moot. Not that I can disprove it. I just don't WANT to have to complicate things that much.
There's also Zealandia, nearby. I'm pretty sure there was (at least one) Mu, it's just we have no Plato relating it to us.
Dwaraka, off the west coast of India, is perhaps the best shot we presently have of turning our idea of history and development on it's head. There's no doubt it's a city, and predates every other example we know about and can reach soon.
that was a remarkably POORLY written article..even by wikipedia standards.
I wonder why the author felt the need to be so repetitive.
oddly enough...most other places in the world the sea level was 400 ft lower..why was sundaland so different?
The region is seismically very active. While generally sea level has risen 400 feet, the actual difference is modulated regionally by tectonics and rebound, and all sorts of things.
I don't even want to contemplate crustal shifting, as that just makes everything we think we know about tectonics somewhat moot. Not that I can disprove it. I just don't WANT to have to complicate things that much.
There's also Zealandia, nearby. I'm pretty sure there was (at least one) Mu, it's just we have no Plato relating it to us.
Dwaraka, off the west coast of India, is perhaps the best shot we presently have of turning our idea of history and development on it's head. There's no doubt it's a city, and predates every other example we know about and can reach soon.