I think the reason Zealandia is called a “submerged continent” is because it is made of continental crust rather than oceanic crust.
But IMO the best geologic definition of continents is by tectonic plates, which mostly matches up with the cultural definitions of the continents.
For the major continents, we have these plates:
North American
South American
Eurasian
African
Australian
Antarctic
There are several smaller plates too, like the Caribbean, Indian, and Arabian plates. IMO, we should consider these independent continents.
There is also a dedicated Pacific plate. The ring of fire is the border of this plate.
New Zealand / Zealandia is on the ring of fire. Half on the Australian plate, half on the Pacific plate. You can actually see the border of the two plates when you look at the topographical map of Zealandia.
The OP states it was part of Gondwana, maybe that’s what makes it different.
If you click through to the microcontinent link that seems to support the idea of microcontinents being pieces broken off a bigger one. But with everything coming from Gondwana then that means all the existing ones are fragments, and the only reason other fragments aren’t considered continents is size (e.g. Madigascar).
Zealandia seems to be the Pluto of continents. Too small to be a continent but much larger than the largest microcontinent.
That Civilization 6 uses geological continents when the ‘continent’ key word is used where every other game in the series uses geographical continents for that key word still bugs me.
If submerged land can be called continents, where’s the line between what is and isn’t a continent?
I think the reason Zealandia is called a “submerged continent” is because it is made of continental crust rather than oceanic crust.
But IMO the best geologic definition of continents is by tectonic plates, which mostly matches up with the cultural definitions of the continents.
For the major continents, we have these plates:
There are several smaller plates too, like the Caribbean, Indian, and Arabian plates. IMO, we should consider these independent continents.
There is also a dedicated Pacific plate. The ring of fire is the border of this plate.
New Zealand / Zealandia is on the ring of fire. Half on the Australian plate, half on the Pacific plate. You can actually see the border of the two plates when you look at the topographical map of Zealandia.
Oceanic crust is heavier, denser, and composed of different rocks than continental crust.
It’s just this, just simple geology.
The water level is actually irrelevant.
The OP states it was part of Gondwana, maybe that’s what makes it different.
If you click through to the microcontinent link that seems to support the idea of microcontinents being pieces broken off a bigger one. But with everything coming from Gondwana then that means all the existing ones are fragments, and the only reason other fragments aren’t considered continents is size (e.g. Madigascar).
Zealandia seems to be the Pluto of continents. Too small to be a continent but much larger than the largest microcontinent.
Geographical continents and geological continents aren’t quite the same thing.
That Civilization 6 uses geological continents when the ‘continent’ key word is used where every other game in the series uses geographical continents for that key word still bugs me.
That’s a debate that transcends culture. Some cultures say there are seven, some say six, and yet others say five.
Fault lines? Thats all I got