This really reinforce something I have thought for some time now, mainly that due to sea level changes, many ancient sites are now underwater.

I even have a pet theory about Atlantis, which I will repost from /r/AskHistorians:

"Though it is probably confirmation bias due to my particular interest in Sumer, there is much evidence that what is now the Persian Gulf was flooded quite suddenly, With evidence that many of the settlements post-flood were quickly setup, in places where formerly only nomad hunter/gatherers lived.

What you have to consider is the origin of the myth when compared to the archeology. The myth starts with Plato, who cites Solon visiting Sais, Egypt and learning of Atlantis. Plato says Atlantis existed about 9600 BC.

My theory goes like this:

What Plato/Solon called Atlantis is actually the civilization that once existed in the unflooded persian gulf, from which refuges of the flood fled to surrounding areas (and further) and brought with them the knowledge of civilization they possessed. When I say civilization, I mean the transition from hunter/gatherer society to agricultural society, and possibly writing/proto-writing. (Not the super civilization myth many imagine it as)

Allow me to explain and support this assertion as best I can.

The Egyptian town Solon visited was the home town of the goddess Neith as far back as 3000 BC, and it was the priests of Neith which gave him the information about Atlantis. Neith is likely to be associated with the god Tanit, who in turn may be associated with the Akkadian god Ishtar, which is actually the counterpart of the Sumerian Inanna.

That's a lot of connections to make, but what does it matter relevant to this? Well, it matters in two main ways. First, the greek Athena (and hence Athens) is actually derived from, if the above connection is true, the Sumerian Inanna. Plato/Solon placed too much importance on this connection, and in seeking to tie their Athens to the myth of Atlantis, fouled the myth up a bit. (The part about Atlantis and a war with Athens) This is why for so long before the good science of plate tectonics and geology Atlantis was sought in places it could never have been, such as the Atlantic and Mediterranean. The real connection is Sumeria and before.

The second part about why the Sumerian connection is so important is purely about timelines. If indeed there was a flood in the Persian Gulf as some of the recent science suggests, at around 8000 BC, it could possibly match the Sumerian King's list, which states there was a flood roughly that long ago. (the oldest king on the list verified is back to about 2600 BC, past that the list itself is the only source, which is why I say roughly) So I find it highly likely that much of the ancient history known by the priests of Sais that told Solon about Atlantis is actually the slightly adopted and modified version of the Sumerian flood myth, and this is supported by the study of the evolution of Egyptian religion/history as supported by archaeology.

So there you have it. My theory that the flooded southern tip of the fertile crescent at about 8000 BC is the true "Atlantis". Feel free to poke holes in it or make corrections for any sloppiness on my part. This is something I have thought about for a while but just now put into words.

The key thing I would focus on to expand this would be the writings of Plato regarding Solon. I have heard that it was a mistranslation that Plato said 9000 years and that it really reads 900 years, but I have not yet been able to find out where the original text is to ask to for a picture in order confirm/deny this."

http://phys.org/news/2010-12-lost-civilization-persian-gulf....

http://www.livescience.com/10340-lost-civilization-existed-b...

http://www.amazon.com/Recovering-Sarepta-Phoenician-City-Exc...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_King_List

http://www.academia.edu/386944/New_Light_on_Human_Prehistory...