[ForGod'sSake]

The whole city was built out on the beach, for all practical purposes; the underlying strata just slid the whole works into the drink, as if it were on a tobaggan.

Yeah, and earthquake, even a small one, could have turned the substrate into mush. Also, it seems I may have misread this part of the article:

"This city is absolutely untouched," Goddio said. "Everything is in its original position."

I read that to mean the site was essentially buried intact, but it doesn't necessarily say that. The author probably means the site has been undisturbed since its burial at sea ;^)

Still in all, he implies(I think) the site was covered fairly quickly by sediment, which still seems odd. I mean we're talking a combination of a flood and earthquake at roughly the same time. Or at the very least a flood following on the heels of an earthquake???

I dunno. I get frustrated with this "stuff". Seems every piece I read just raises more questions than answers.

FGS

[SunkenCiv]

The subsequent burial under new sand probably happened because of the tides; regarding how close the nearest Nile mouth is, I dunno. Let's have a look at the archives...

from Dec 2000:

New Theories Into What Sank Ancient Egyptian Cities
by Matthew Fordahl
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/121800/sunken_cities.sml

Why Do the Gods Sleep With the Fishes?
by Kenneth Chang http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/26/science/26SUNK.html?pagewanted=all