7 ms·
..."a few hundred years ago"? It was covered in ice a few tens of thousands of years ago. As far as I'm aware, the last time it was the bottom of the sea was s
by danaris 1y ago
..."a few hundred years ago"?
It was covered in ice a few tens of thousands of years ago. As far as I'm aware, the last time it was the bottom of the sea was some significant number of millions of years ago.
Scandinavia has been free of ice for roughly as long as, say, Canada and the northern US.
I don't know much about its soil quality, but if your claim is that it's got only a couple of inches of good soil because it "recently emerged", I'm going to be very skeptical of your other claims.
- dsign 1y agoHm? You could do a search, but here is an article: https://www.discoversormland.com/blog/?postglacial-rebound https://www.discoversormland.com/blog/?postglacial-rebound . Another fun exercise is to simply look at Google maps. If you squint just right, you’ll see extremely flat valleys (ocean bottom) punctuated by old islands. I live 300 meters from the present coastline and have toured the area a bit. There are telltale signs everywhere, including towers and docks that were built at the waterline sometime AC and that now stand a fair bit inland.
- danaris 1y agoI'm aware of postglacial rebound. It doesn't account for what you described, which is that "most of Scandinavia is recently emerged". I did, in fact, do some quick searching myself before writing my previous reply, just to make sure I wasn't missing something stupidly obvious, and the Wikipedia article on Scandinavian prehistory[0] confirmed that people have been living there for at least several thousand years. They've even been farming there since roughly 4000 BC. So no: "most of Scandinavia" wasn't under the ocean "a few hundred years ago". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_prehistory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavian_prehistory