The events of 2300 BC
Eric Stevens
sci.archaeolgy to the probability that, in accordance with the
theories of Clube, Napier, Baillie et al some of the physical evidence
that has been found by archaeologist may be the consequence of
planetary bombardment by cometary debris. It has just been brought to
my attention that Moe has published a book in three paper back volumes
which addresses this in more detail. Mandelkehr has been working on
this topic for more than 20 years so whatever has collected is likely
to be interesting.
For an outline of Mandelkehr's analysis see http://www.2300bc.com/
THE 2300 BC EVENT - A TAPESTRY OF DESTRUCTION
by Moe Mandelkehr
This book presents a story of a devastation that the Earth
experienced at about 2300 BC. If one was inclined to issue
dramatic statements, it could be said that the event was the
most significant in all of man’s history -- and that the course
of history might have been changed. All advanced civilizations
at that time were terminated, and did not recover for hundreds
of years.
The advanced cultures were located in Anatolia (Turkey),
Greece, Egypt, the Middle East, India and Central Asia. Two
geophysical events happened at 2300 BC – 1) most settlements
were violently destroyed by earthquake; and 2) the climate
became abruptly dry in these regions, inhibiting agricultural
activity that was essential for survival. Journal papers have
been written on the event and symposia have been held – without
answers.
Analogous conditions occurred for all regions of less sophisticated
cultures – Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, the Arctic, the Far
East and the Pacific Ocean. Strong climatic and geological
transients at this time were noted in all regions. Previous
cultures disappeared at this point, and new cultures appeared.
Sites over wide areas were destroyed or abandoned.
[More]
Leroy Ellenberger has written to Mike Baillie with copies to a number
of others (and I have his permission to quote him):
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike, I recently learned that Moe Mandelkehr's
long-awaited book _The 2300 B.C. Event_ was published
recently. Many have cited his 1983 introductory paper
in SIS Review on this event and now the whole story is
available in one source, albeit in three vols. The
book may already have been advertised or announced in
some SIS publication.
Mandelkehr posits that at 2300 B.C., almost certainly
the tree-ring event at 2345 B.C. announced in 1988 in
Nature by you and Munro, Earth intercepted a major
cloud of debris in the Taurid stream that wreaked
havoc on the ground, destroying all advanced
civilizations and motivating a new generation of
mythology, while leaving behind a ring around the
Earth inclined 70 degrees to the equator, that
dissipated in a short period of time (Mandelkehr does
not give any specific estimate) but which inspired
many themes/motifs in mythology (interestingly, many
that Talbott and the Saturnists try to pile onto their
"polar configuration!). I think this ring as impetus
to myth is a super insight. The book assembles an
impressive survey of all kinds of evidence attesting a
major global climate event at this epoch and also
connects it to the Taurid meteor stream, as Clube and
Napier, and others have done for major Holocene
"impact" events.
Besides telling you about the book, I would like to
ask you what, if any, information you have gleaned
about GRIP/GISP ice core data concerning ammonium in
the ice at 2345 B.C., which is a datum missing from
your recent discussions of ammonium in the Greenland
ice, which have not included this early event.
Mandelkehr's book is available from Amazon.com in
U.S., U.K. and Canada; just type in Mandelkehr and add
the three volumes to your cart, if interested!
Cheers, Leroy
-----------------------------------------------------
The books may be found at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/2300-Event-Archaeology-Geophysics-Meteoroid/dp/1598002775/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204150632&sr=1-3
http://tinyurl.com/2wcowy
The 2300 BC Event: Vol 1 Archaeology and Geophysics & The
Meteoroid Stream
http://www.amazon.com/2300-BC-Event-Mythology-Eyewitness/dp/1598002953/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204150632&sr=1-2
http://tinyurl.com/3cyc65
The 2300 BC Event: Vol II Mythology -The Eyewitness Accounts 1
http://www.amazon.com/2300-BC-Event-Mythology-Eyewitness/dp/159800297X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204150632&sr=1-1
http://tinyurl.com/38foj2
The 2300 BC Event: Vol III Mythology -The Eyewitness Accounts 2
I have ordered the books which will take a while to arrive and be
read. I will report further once that is done.
Eric Stevens
David
>...
> I have ordered the books which will take a while to arrive and be
> read. I will report further once that is done.
>
> Eric Stevens
Awesome post - in the 2008 top 10.
David Christainsen
c.l...@rocketmail.com
> On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of subscribers to
> sci.archaeolgy to the probability that, in accordance with the
> theories of Clube, Napier, Baillie et al some of the physical evidence
> that has been found by archaeologist may be the consequence of
> planetary bombardment by cometary debris. It has just been brought to
> my attention that Moe has published a book in three paper back volumes
> which addresses this in more detail. Mandelkehr has been working on
> this topic for more than 20 years so whatever has collected is likely
> to be interesting.
>
>
> THE 2300 BC EVENT - A TAPESTRY OF DESTRUCTION
>
> by Moe Mandelkehr
>
> This book presents a story of a devastation that the Earth
> experienced at about 2300 BC. If one was inclined to issue
> dramatic statements, it could be said that the event was the
> most significant in all of man's history -- and that the course
> of history might have been changed. All advanced civilizations
> at that time were terminated, and did not recover for hundreds
> of years.
>
> The advanced cultures were located in Anatolia (Turkey),
> Greece, Egypt, the Middle East, India and Central Asia. Two
> were violently destroyed by earthquake; and 2) the climate
> became abruptly dry in these regions, inhibiting agricultural
> activity that was essential for survival. Journal papers have
> answers.
>
> Analogous conditions occurred for all regions of less sophisticated
>
> The 2300 BC Event: Vol 1 Archaeology and Geophysics & The
> Meteoroid Stream
>
>
> The 2300 BC Event: Vol II Mythology -The Eyewitness Accounts 1
>
>
> The 2300 BC Event: Vol III Mythology -The Eyewitness Accounts 2
>
> I have ordered the books which will take a while to arrive and be
> read. I will report further once that is done.
>
> Eric Stevens
My thanks to Eric Stevens for posting his message. Let me share with
you Mike Baillie's reply to my question.
He advised that only the GISP2 core is available and while there are
ammonium signals at 3200 BC and 4375 BC,
the latter corresponding to a narrow tree-ring event, there is
"nothing significant in the immediate vicinity of 2350 BC."
This comes as a surprise, but this lack of an ammonium signal at 2350
BC need not necessarily rule out the "cosmic
accretion" event described by Mandelkehr because other evidence exists
that is consistent with such a scenario,
especially the discovery of extra-terrestrial metallic microspherules
by Marie-Agnes Courty at Tell Leilan in Syria,
reported at the Second Cambridge Conference in 1997, "Natural
Catastrophes during Bronze Age Civilization", whose proceedings were
published in 1998, edited by Peiser, Palmer and Bailey.
Also here is a brief description of the how the putative earth-ring
looked: As Mandelkehr summarizes, regardless the life of the ring, it
"must have made a dramatic impression on all peoples on the globe,
judging from the tremendous body
of mythology pertaining to the ring. The ring was imagined as a stream
flowing around the Earth, a
mountain reaching to heaven, a serpent circling the Earth with its
tail in its mouth, a chariot wheel, a
bridge to the afterworld, and many other representations" (vol. II, p.
336).
Leroy Ellenberger, St. Louis, MO
"Worlds Still Colliding"
<http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velstcol.html>
Cory Albrecht
> This book presents a story of a devastation that the Earth
> experienced at about 2300 BC. If one was inclined to issue
> dramatic statements, it could be said that the event was the
> most significant in all of man’s history -- and that the course
> of history might have been changed. All advanced civilizations
> at that time were terminated, and did not recover for hundreds
> of years.
One question - what type of civilization was Akkad considered to be?
Because wasn't Sargon doing all his conquering between 2330 and 2270
BCE? Or was Akkad not considered to be a major civilization?
Matt Giwer
...
> Mandelkehr posits that at 2300 B.C., almost certainly
> the tree-ring event at 2345 B.C. announced in 1988 in
> Nature by you and Munro, Earth intercepted a major
> cloud of debris in the Taurid stream that wreaked
> havoc on the ground, destroying all advanced
> civilizations and motivating a new generation of
> mythology, while leaving behind a ring around the
> Earth inclined 70 degrees to the equator, that
> dissipated in a short period of time (Mandelkehr does
> not give any specific estimate) but which inspired
> many themes/motifs in mythology (interestingly, many
> that Talbott and the Saturnists try to pile onto their
> "polar configuration!). I think this ring as impetus
> to myth is a super insight. The book assembles an
> impressive survey of all kinds of evidence attesting a
> major global climate event at this epoch and also
> connects it to the Taurid meteor stream, as Clube and
> Napier, and others have done for major Holocene
> "impact" events.
Velikovsky lives on in the annals of junk astrophysics and junk history.
Who are the newbies who posted just to hype sales of these crap books?
--
The world did not rise up to help Jews in Nazi Germany for the same reason
the world does not rise today to rescue the Palestinians.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3936
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a3
Uwe Müller
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:rbnbs3daj3g6f5qr3...@4ax.com...
> On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of subscribers to
> sci.archaeolgy to the probability that, in accordance with the
> theories of Clube, Napier, Baillie et al some of the physical evidence
> that has been found by archaeologist may be the consequence of
> planetary bombardment by cometary debris. It has just been brought to
> my attention that Moe has published a book in three paper back volumes
> which addresses this in more detail. Mandelkehr has been working on
> this topic for more than 20 years so whatever has collected is likely
> to be interesting.
>
> For an outline of Mandelkehr's analysis see http://www.2300bc.com/
>
> THE 2300 BC EVENT - A TAPESTRY OF DESTRUCTION
>
> by Moe Mandelkehr
>
> This book presents a story of a devastation that the Earth
> experienced at about 2300 BC. If one was inclined to issue
> dramatic statements, it could be said that the event was the
> most significant in all of man's history -- and that the course
> of history might have been changed. All advanced civilizations
> at that time were terminated, and did not recover for hundreds
> of years.
>
> The advanced cultures were located in Anatolia (Turkey),
> Greece, Egypt, the Middle East, India and Central Asia. Two
> were violently destroyed by earthquake; and 2) the climate
> became abruptly dry in these regions, inhibiting agricultural
> activity that was essential for survival. Journal papers have
> answers.
>
> Analogous conditions occurred for all regions of less sophisticated
> East and the Pacific Ocean. Strong climatic and geological
> transients at this time were noted in all regions. Previous
> cultures disappeared at this point, and new cultures appeared.
> Sites over wide areas were destroyed or abandoned.
>
Sorry to dampen your enthusiasm, but there was no ctatastrophic havoc on the
ground in Europe north of the alps at that time, nor a gap of some
centuries, untill people recovered.
> snip >
>The book assembles an
> impressive survey of all kinds of evidence attesting a
> major global climate event at this epoch and also
> connects it to the Taurid meteor stream, as Clube and
> Napier, and others have done for major Holocene
> "impact" events.
> snip >
And that is once again the major problem with this kind of survey, it
collects all kinds of data, which fits a preconceived notion, the impact.
Data which does not fit, like the ice core data Leroy taslks about in his
answer, is explained away or declared to be non-vital in the light of so
much other evidence. Stonehenge, as one site which has been well researched,
and where the results have been published, does not show a breaking off at
2300 years BC, the surrounding plain shows no lack of burials for the
following centuries.
So whatever happened, it can not have been more than a regional event, not
global. And as especially the more northern cultures see no decline but a
rise in population, sophistication, long distance exchange and the
presentation of material wealth, a climatic change towards drier and warmer
weather fits the facts better than the scenario of an impact. It would
explain why people in areas already dry and warm suffered from these
changes, while in the northern regions these changes were accepted as being
benificial.
Is there any impact explanation for the most noted change in European pre
history, that from inhumation to cremation burials in the late Bronce Age,
the Urnfield culture?
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Eric Stevens
I might be able to answer you better when I have read the books. FYI,
I am not carrying a flag for Mandlekehr's hypothesis. We shall have to
see.
Eric Stevens
Digger
"Uwe Müller" <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote in message
news:fq8bo6$h3f$1...@online.de...
> Is there any impact explanation for the most noted change in European pre
> history, that from inhumation to cremation burials in the late Bronce Age,
> the Urnfield culture?
Maybe just the "impact" of a new ideology.
David
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:21:19 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:rbnbs3daj3g6f5qr3...@4ax.com...
> >> On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of subscribers to
> >> sci.archaeolgy to the probability that, in accordance with the
> >> theories of Clube, Napier, Baillie et al some of the physical evidence
> >> that has been found by archaeologist may be the consequence of
> >> planetary bombardment by cometary debris. It has just been brought to
> >> my attention that Moe has published a book in three paper back volumes
> >> which addresses this in more detail. Mandelkehr has been working on
> >> this topic for more than 20 years so whatever has collected is likely
> >> to be interesting.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
A fair answer by Eric to Uwe.
David Christainsen
Matt Giwer
...
> I might be able to answer you better when I have read the books. FYI,
> I am not carrying a flag for Mandlekehr's hypothesis. We shall have to
> see.
Didn't that magic "debris" going into orbit ring a bell? Has no one noticed
after all these decades of NASA reports that entering orbit requires a velocity
change?
--
If you follow the fighting in Israel you have to come to the conclusion that
the government, the newspapers and the resistance groups have each other on
their speed dials.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3939
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Eric Stevens
>Is there any impact explanation for the most noted change in European pre
>history, that from inhumation to cremation burials in the late Bronce Age,
>the Urnfield culture?
You 'might' find something in the papers towards the bottom of the
list at http://www.sis-group.org.uk/cambproc.htm
I was going to post abstracts but they seem to have gone.
Eric Stevens
Uwe Müller
Those are just speculations about the reason behind the cause for change
There are even different dates depending on where you look, and what data
you examine. So nothing substantial.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>news:qevgs39pmtoh6e4ju...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:21:19 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
>> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>>
>>>Is there any impact explanation for the most noted change in European pre
>>>history, that from inhumation to cremation burials in the late Bronce Age,
>>>the Urnfield culture?
>>
>> You 'might' find something in the papers towards the bottom of the
>> list at http://www.sis-group.org.uk/cambproc.htm
>>
>> I was going to post abstracts but they seem to have gone.
>
>Those are just speculations about the reason behind the cause for change
>There are even different dates depending on where you look, and what data
>you examine. So nothing substantial.
>
I think that at that distance in time any explanation as to 'why' will
only be a speculation.
Eric Stevens
Uwe Müller
Why should that be? Shouldn't cause and effect be as important today as they
were 3000 years ago? Would geology be only a set of speculations, because
the time frame is much bigger?
If I have no effect otoh , why would I need am impact, that can not be
verified, to have caused it? If I have continuity in settlements, in
culture, in patterns of land use, why does imagining an impact help me
explain the change in burial customs?
I can provide evidence for climatic change, which goes a long way to explain
the different development of human cultures between northern and southern
Europe. What would such an impact explain, if it could be supported by
evidence?
Climatic changes could be caused by an impact, and by at least a dozen other
szenarios. What makes the impact theory unlikely is the lack of proof.
Material, which exploded in the air, or dived into the mid Atlantic, is not
verifieable. If an impact can be proven for the pre roman iron age, why
shouldn't it be possible to prove one only a couple of centuries earlier?
Just because of the distance in time?
If it's not verifieable, or cant be disproved, it is not science. Collecting
interesting tidbits about possible catastrophic scenarios may be positive
for the ego of the 'researcher', it does not help in any way with research
into or explanations about prehistoric cultures in a scientific way.
have fun
Uwe Mueller
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
Because in asking "Is there any impact explanation for the most noted
change in European pre-history, that from inhumation to cremation
burials in the late Bronce age" and talking talking about " the reason
behind the cause for change" you are asking for someone to tell you
'why'. It may well be that even the people of the time did not really
know 'why' they changed their practices. All they know is that they
did change. Attempting to provide an explanation from several thousand
years later as to why the change occurred is unlikely to ever be more
than speculation.
As to geology, we can explain the past in terms of mechanisms which we
can observe in action today. Can we do the same with the cultural
mechanisms which caused the change from inhumation to cremation? For
that matter, what led to the change from exposure of the dead to
inhumation or cremation? Which way did the changes really flow?
>
>If I have no effect otoh , why would I need am impact, that can not be
>verified, to have caused it? If I have continuity in settlements, in
>culture, in patterns of land use, why does imagining an impact help me
>explain the change in burial customs?
>
>I can provide evidence for climatic change, which goes a long way to explain
>the different development of human cultures between northern and southern
>Europe. What would such an impact explain, if it could be supported by
>evidence?
It's not necessary to have an impact with anything more than the
atmosphere. It doesn't have to be an impact with the ground. All it
needs be is the collision with clouds of dust and small (?) debris.
Such impacts could explain collapse of civilisations and sudden
climate change.
>
>Climatic changes could be caused by an impact, and by at least a dozen other
>szenarios. What makes the impact theory unlikely is the lack of proof.
Sorry. That's a logical fallacy. It stands or falls on how hard
mankind has been looking for evidence of impacts. The search has
really only be getting under way in the last 10~20 years and a
disconcerting amount of evidence is emerging. Much more has yet to be
done.
>Material, which exploded in the air, or dived into the mid Atlantic, is not
>verifieable.
Not so. Ice cores have the potential to tell a lot. So too do searches
such that of "Marie-Agnčs Courty: The Soil Record of an Exceptional
Event at 4000 B.P. in the Middle East."
>If an impact can be proven for the pre roman iron age, why
>shouldn't it be possible to prove one only a couple of centuries earlier?
>Just because of the distance in time?
It's not that long ago that I was being lectured in sci.archaeology
about there never having been no mega-tsunami. The justification being
that no evidence was known. Well, that situation is changing right
now. For a quick and dirty refrence see http://tsun.sscc.ru/proj.htm
>
>If it's not verifieable, or cant be disproved, it is not science.
It is a fallacy to confuse "can't be" with "has not yet been".
>Collecting
>interesting tidbits about possible catastrophic scenarios may be positive
>for the ego of the 'researcher', it does not help in any way with research
>into or explanations about prehistoric cultures in a scientific way.
I'm sorry Uwe: you are in danger of missing out on something
important.
Eric Stevens
Uwe Müller
Well, it was not me, that stated an impact would have been the most likely
explanation. and that stated, cultural change, or cultural manifestations,
could be witnessed globally and would thus have to be explained by a global
catastrophe.
>
> As to geology, we can explain the past in terms of mechanisms which we
> can observe in action today.
So generally, the time frame does not play an important role.
> Can we do the same with the cultural
> mechanisms which caused the change from inhumation to cremation? For
> that matter, what led to the change from exposure of the dead to
> inhumation or cremation? Which way did the changes really flow?
It was this fact, that was interpreted as catastrophic, and happening
globally, and was suppiosedly caused by cosmic catastrophes.
You arrive at the same conclusion: even if they had some evidence for an
impact with global effects, it would, as they present their arguments, have
no bearing on the cultural changes of the societies at the time.
Which in short spells out as : kook.
>>
>>If I have no effect otoh , why would I need am impact, that can not be
>>verified, to have caused it? If I have continuity in settlements, in
>>culture, in patterns of land use, why does imagining an impact help me
>>explain the change in burial customs?
>>
>>I can provide evidence for climatic change, which goes a long way to
>>explain
>>the different development of human cultures between northern and southern
>>Europe. What would such an impact explain, if it could be supported by
>>evidence?
>
> It's not necessary to have an impact with anything more than the
> atmosphere. It doesn't have to be an impact with the ground. All it
> needs be is the collision with clouds of dust and small (?) debris.
> Such impacts could explain collapse of civilisations and sudden
> climate change.
You just ruled out the possibility that a non-detectable impact could have
any noticeable effect on cultures.
Science ruled out the possibility, that a detectable impact was of more than
of local importance.
Wouldn't it be time to establish some sort of positive connection between an
impact and the sort of phenomena, that are used as indicators for the
'collaps of civilisations'? And not only in the putattive case, 'could
explain'?
If the whole thing was more than a scheme to once more make a dollar out of
Velikovsky's theories, shouldn't this connection be the first thing, that
would have to be established, before any speculations on the where and the
why? Doesn't the fact, that non of these 'catastrophists' even tries to
establish such a connection tell us something about their motives?
>>
>>Climatic changes could be caused by an impact, and by at least a dozen
>>other
>>szenarios. What makes the impact theory unlikely is the lack of proof.
>
> Sorry. That's a logical fallacy. It stands or falls on how hard
> mankind has been looking for evidence of impacts. The search has
> really only be getting under way in the last 10~20 years and a
> disconcerting amount of evidence is emerging. Much more has yet to be
> done.
Wrong. Anything that is supposedly able to make civilisation collaps on a
global scale, would have to leave traces on a local and regional scale. The
effects couldn't just be restricted to the mid atlantic or the athmosphere
above the people.
Instead there is continuity, showing nothing more than people leaving
boundary settlement sites, but enjoying live at the primary sites.
>
>>Material, which exploded in the air, or dived into the mid Atlantic, is
>>not
>>verifieable.
>
> Not so. Ice cores have the potential to tell a lot. So too do searches
> such that of "Marie-Agnès Courty: The Soil Record of an Exceptional
> Event at 4000 B.P. in the Middle East."
Which means, that though there are verifieable impacts, that did have
verfiable local effects, those mythical unverified impacts are supposed to
have unverifieable global effects. And allthough those people, that say they
are working on the subject, steer clear of anything, that could help decide
the issue, this does not mean that they are unscientific, but is supposedly
only an indicator for a lack of funding for those people.
For me that rather sounds as if they don't even care for the poor quality of
the excuses they use.
>
>>If an impact can be proven for the pre roman iron age, why
>>shouldn't it be possible to prove one only a couple of centuries earlier?
>>Just because of the distance in time?
>
> It's not that long ago that I was being lectured in sci.archaeology
> about there never having been no mega-tsunami. The justification being
> that no evidence was known. Well, that situation is changing right
> now. For a quick and dirty refrence see http://tsun.sscc.ru/proj.htm
Could we first address one point, impacts from outer space, before diverting
to other topics.
North alpine Europe is the region with the best researched prehistoric data.
The chance to find proof for any theory about global effects in prehistoric
times is much greater here, than for any other area.
What prevents many people from using this data is, that you can be proven
wrong very quickly. so what you do is using data from areas that are not
easily accessible, poorly researched and poorly published (look at all the
misteries surrounding Central Asia).
>>
>>If it's not verifieable, or cant be disproved, it is not science.
>
> It is a fallacy to confuse "can't be" with "has not yet been".
No, the scientific method has been defined, and duplication and
verfication/falsification are its core elements.
>
>>Collecting
>>interesting tidbits about possible catastrophic scenarios may be positive
>>for the ego of the 'researcher', it does not help in any way with research
>>into or explanations about prehistoric cultures in a scientific way.
>
> I'm sorry Uwe: you are in danger of missing out on something
> important.
That is one thing, which I have been told dozens of times, often while
working on some small inconsistency, that annoyed me, which would become
important later.
If you have enough data about any species in a given habitat, it will show
changes in the habitat. This is employed for detecting pollution. Man is the
species that we know most about, the habitat is here in Europe. The data is
here. If you dont trust it, you can look at hundreds of pollen profiles,
sediment analyses etc. etc. etc.
There may have been cosmic impacts on a more regular basis or not, if at
certain times only or in general, but the evidence says, their effect on
humun civilizations, local ecosystems or sedimentation records is minimal at
best.
There is no evidence that any of them could have the effect of inducing
change on a global scale in the manners speculated about. Intrusions from
outside is a fascinating topic, but unless you can connect it to human life
it is rather pointless to discuss it in archaeology.
You can look at studies about the Noerdlinger Ries, a big impact crater, to
see, how man has reacted to it
Speculating about causes -and- effects blamed on a lack of data is all right
in an initial stage of any research. Velis theories have fascinated a lot of
peoples, I was among them. But what are the scientific and verifieable facts
a century later?
have fun
Uwe Mueller
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
But it was you which asked
"Is there any impact explanation for the most noted change in
European pre history, that from inhumation to cremation burials in
the late Bronce Age, the Urnfield culture?"
and after a brief discussion it was me that replied that "I think
that at that distance in time any explanation as to 'why' will only be
a speculation." I still hold to that view. The point being that your
criticism of the cites I gave you "Those are just speculations about
the reason behind the cause for change..." is what would be expected.
>
>>
>> As to geology, we can explain the past in terms of mechanisms which we
>> can observe in action today.
>
>So generally, the time frame does not play an important role.
>
>> Can we do the same with the cultural
>> mechanisms which caused the change from inhumation to cremation? For
>> that matter, what led to the change from exposure of the dead to
>> inhumation or cremation? Which way did the changes really flow?
>
>It was this fact, that was interpreted as catastrophic, and happening
>globally, and was suppiosedly caused by cosmic catastrophes.
>
>You arrive at the same conclusion: even if they had some evidence for an
>impact with global effects, it would, as they present their arguments, have
>no bearing on the cultural changes of the societies at the time.
>
>Which in short spells out as : kook.
I think most cultures would tend to notice gigantic phenomena in the
sky, being bombarded with stones, Tunguska-like impacts, dust veils
causing a global drop in temperature, consequent famine etc. The
question in my mind is what evidence does Mandelkehr for any of these
things having happened. I'm going to have to read the book before I
can tell you.
>
>
>>>
>>>If I have no effect otoh , why would I need am impact, that can not be
>>>verified, to have caused it? If I have continuity in settlements, in
>>>culture, in patterns of land use, why does imagining an impact help me
>>>explain the change in burial customs?
>>>
>>>I can provide evidence for climatic change, which goes a long way to
>>>explain
>>>the different development of human cultures between northern and southern
>>>Europe. What would such an impact explain, if it could be supported by
>>>evidence?
>>
>> It's not necessary to have an impact with anything more than the
>> atmosphere. It doesn't have to be an impact with the ground. All it
>> needs be is the collision with clouds of dust and small (?) debris.
>> Such impacts could explain collapse of civilisations and sudden
>> climate change.
>
>You just ruled out the possibility that a non-detectable impact could have
>any noticeable effect on cultures.
>Science ruled out the possibility, that a detectable impact was of more than
>of local importance.
I think that you are continuing to make the mistake of arguing that
the fact that we currently have no evidence (and I'm not sure that
that is true) of impact-related events 4300 years ago means that there
were no such events.
>
>Wouldn't it be time to establish some sort of positive connection between an
>impact and the sort of phenomena, that are used as indicators for the
>'collaps of civilisations'? And not only in the putattive case, 'could
>explain'?
'Could explain' is all that is so often cited. Consider
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080229-servir-maya.html
"Maya may have induced their own destruction"
>
>If the whole thing was more than a scheme to once more make a dollar out of
>Velikovsky's theories,
This is nothing like Velikovsky. Clube, Napier and Baillie perhaps.
>... shouldn't this connection be the first thing, that
>would have to be established, before any speculations on the where and the
>why? Doesn't the fact, that non of these 'catastrophists' even tries to
>establish such a connection tell us something about their motives?
Tsk tsk tsk. Here have I been posting all those articles about
Baillie, dendrochronology, tree rings, climate change, plague,
collapse of the Roman empire, linkage with evidence of comets etc -
and it seems to have gone right by you. The connection has already
been made.
>
>>>
>>>Climatic changes could be caused by an impact, and by at least a dozen
>>>other
>>>szenarios. What makes the impact theory unlikely is the lack of proof.
>>
>> Sorry. That's a logical fallacy. It stands or falls on how hard
>> mankind has been looking for evidence of impacts. The search has
>> really only be getting under way in the last 10~20 years and a
>> disconcerting amount of evidence is emerging. Much more has yet to be
>> done.
>
>Wrong. Anything that is supposedly able to make civilisation collaps on a
>global scale, would have to leave traces on a local and regional scale. The
>effects couldn't just be restricted to the mid atlantic or the athmosphere
>above the people.
What are you looking for - craters? What about a period of sustained
low temperatures and drought?
>
>Instead there is continuity, showing nothing more than people leaving
>boundary settlement sites, but enjoying live at the primary sites.
There is the problem that one cannot readily detect sudden and
transitory events at a range of several thousand years. One cannot
even determine simultaneity.
>
>>
>>>Material, which exploded in the air, or dived into the mid Atlantic, is
>>>not
>>>verifieable.
>>
>> Not so. Ice cores have the potential to tell a lot. So too do searches
>> such that of "Marie-Agnčs Courty: The Soil Record of an Exceptional
>> Event at 4000 B.P. in the Middle East."
>
>Which means, that though there are verifieable impacts, that did have
>verfiable local effects, those mythical unverified impacts are supposed to
>have unverifieable global effects.
I don't see how you can reach those conclusions. As with volcanoes,
meteoric evidence found in ice cores can have come from almost any
part of the world. One of the problems is that people are only just
starting to learn what evidence they should be looking for.
In any case, the ca 2300 BC date for Mandelkehr's 'event' is linked to
global crustal deformations, sea-level discontinuities, earthquakes,
volcanic activity, a geomagnetic transient, a radiocarbon transient,
evidence of an air-burst in the middle east, a cold-climate event in
Irish tree rings and many other things. Something happened. The
question is - what?
>And allthough those people, that say they
>are working on the subject, steer clear of anything, that could help decide
>the issue, this does not mean that they are unscientific, but is supposedly
>only an indicator for a lack of funding for those people.
Come Uwi. I can see foam at the corners of your mouth. :-)
There are people (including archaeologists) working on aspects of this
general problem all around the world. No doubt there are kooks also
but that is always the case.
>
>For me that rather sounds as if they don't even care for the poor quality of
>the excuses they use.
Dear me - you have just knocked down a straw man.
>
>>
>>>If an impact can be proven for the pre roman iron age, why
>>>shouldn't it be possible to prove one only a couple of centuries earlier?
>>>Just because of the distance in time?
>>
>> It's not that long ago that I was being lectured in sci.archaeology
>> about there never having been no mega-tsunami. The justification being
>> that no evidence was known. Well, that situation is changing right
>> now. For a quick and dirty refrence see http://tsun.sscc.ru/proj.htm
>
>Could we first address one point, impacts from outer space, before diverting
>to other topics.
>North alpine Europe is the region with the best researched prehistoric data.
>The chance to find proof for any theory about global effects in prehistoric
>times is much greater here, than for any other area.
How do cultural changes, movements in populations etc, in north alpine
europe correlate in time with the fall of the Akkadian empire, the end
of the Egyptian Old Kingdom etc. There was a lot of turbulence at
about that period with empires collapsing all over the place.
>
>What prevents many people from using this data is, that you can be proven
>wrong very quickly. so what you do is using data from areas that are not
>easily accessible, poorly researched and poorly published (look at all the
>misteries surrounding Central Asia).
>
>>>
>>>If it's not verifieable, or cant be disproved, it is not science.
>>
>> It is a fallacy to confuse "can't be" with "has not yet been".
>
>No, the scientific method has been defined, and duplication and
>verfication/falsification are its core elements.
But absolute knowledge is not.
You are making a mistake if you confuse all this with Velikovsky
(velis).
Don't worry, I am having fun.
Eric Stevens
W. Sheppard Baird
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:21:21 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
>
Dear Eric,
I tried my very best to be as unbiased as humanly possible on this
hypothesis. I took statements like:
"All advanced civilizations at that time [2300 BC] were terminated,
and did not recover for hundreds of years."
"Previous cultures disappeared at this point, and new cultures
appeared. Sites over wide areas were destroyed or abandoned."
at face value and started looking for the evidence.
In volcanology (ex: Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program), I can see
only basically normal volcanic and seismic activity during the first
three millennia BC. with the notable exception of the Theran
(Santorini) eruption in about 1630 BC which truly was a global event.
Cornell's dendrochronology data doesn't support Moe's conclusion and I
certainly can see no evidence for any sustained cataclysmic cultural
discontinuity in the Aegean or anywhere else in the Mediterranean for
that matter. Instead it seems to be a period of relative continuity
and expansion. The Minoans in the Aegean were definitely not
terminated in 2300 BC!
My only appropriate scientific take on this is that Moe's hypothesis
is a conclusion with no verifiable evidence and is therefore
imaginative speculation - not science.
Please Eric, I need some real verifiable scientific evidence on this
and I promise I will take another unbiased look at it.
Best Regards,
W. Sheppard Baird
Eric Stevens
You will have to wait until I have read the book.
Eric Stevens
David
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can't wait for another installment.
David Christainsen
c.l...@rocketmail.com
wrote:
> On Mar 1, 7:05 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:21:21 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
>
> Dear Eric,
>
> I tried my very best to be as unbiased as humanly possible on this
> hypothesis. I took statements like:
>
> "All advanced civilizations at that time [2300 BC] were terminated,
> and did not recover for hundreds of years."
>
> "Previous cultures disappeared at this point, and new cultures
> appeared. Sites over wide areas were destroyed or abandoned."
>
> at face value and started looking for the evidence.
>
> In volcanology (ex: Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program), I can see
> only basically normal volcanic and seismic activity during the first
> three millennia BC. with the notable exception of the Theran
> (Santorini) eruption in about 1630 BC which truly was a global event.
> Cornell's dendrochronology data doesn't support Moe's conclusion and I
I do not know what to make of this remark. A quick search on
Google.com
revealed nothing to support this notion and the fact of the matter is
that
Mike Baillie's work has shown global narrow-ring events at 3195 BC,
2345 BC,
1628 BC, 1159 BC, and 207 BC, among others, esp. AD 540. All these
events
were initially attributed to climate transients caused by major
eruptions, BUT there
was no major eruption at AD 540, which prompted Baillie to look for
other causes.
He settled on an "impact" event between Earth and debris in the Taurid
meteor
stream, as he and Patrick McCafferty present in their The Celtic Gods:
Comets
in Irish Mythology (2005). It cannot be ruled out that the other
narrow-ring events
were not also related to "cosmic accretion events" involving Taurid
meteor debris
loading the atmosphere and producing a global climate crisis. As for
Mandelkehr,
he has collected a large amount of published material relating to
various transients
dated at 2300 BC by the original investigators and attempted to
explain all of it in
terms of an interaction with the Taurid meteor stream. One grand
synthesis. Considering the almost total
lack of support Baillie and McCafferty have been able to muster for
their "cosmic
accretion event" at AD 540, whose case though circumstantial is quite
compelling, it
is to be expected that any similar exercise for a putative event at
2300 BC would be
a harder challenge to meet.
Leroy Ellenberger, St. Louis, MO
c.l...@rocketmail.com
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > I might be able to answer you better when I have read the books. FYI,
> > I am not carrying a flag for Mandlekehr's hypothesis. We shall have to
> > see.
>
> Didn't that magic "debris" going into orbit ring a bell? Has no one noticed
> after all these decades of NASA reports that entering orbit requires a velocity
> change?
There is nothing inherently impossible about Earth acquiring a ring,
which is nothing more
than a concentration of natural satellites distributed entirely around
us.. All that is
required is an incoming source for the material and, as noted, "a
velocity change"
which can be accomplished by, for example, atmospheric drag, as was
the case for the Cyrillid
fireball procession of 9 Feb. 1913 whose altitude was so low that it
lasted for about one
orbit; see J.A. O'Keefe, Science, Feb. 24, 1961, vol. 133, pp. 562-6:
<http://www.sciencemag/org/cgi/reprint/133/3452/562.pdf>.
This procession passed over Toronto, Ontario, on a NW-SE trajectory at
about 9:05 PM, EST.
Later in 1980, O'Keefe proposed an equatorial ring, formed of
volcanic ejecta from the Moon,
existed 34 milliion years ago and was the terminal Eocene event; see
J.A. O'Keefe, Nature
29 May 1980, vol. 285, pp. 309-11: <http://www.nature.com/nature/
journal/v285/n5763/abs/285309a0.html>.
This was reported in S/O Science80, Sep. Astronomy, and 26 June New
Scientist at the time.
The earth-ring proposed by Mandelkehr was composed of submicron
particles whose elliptical
orbits around earth were tilted ca. 70 degrees to the equator with
apogees ranging from 10,000 to
80,000 kilometers and perigees ranging from 200 to 300 kilometers.
This information comes from
Mandelkehr's 1994 book proposal that he gave to me when I announced
his ideas in a post to
talk.origins on 14 July 1994 made for me by Jim Lippard, where in the
section "The Unfamiliar Sky"
I remarked: "...The sky during an active Taurid phase would have
been plenty unfamiliar or alien. According to Clube in a recent
anthology: '...the issue at the heart of theological debate these
last
two thousand years, namely, the fundamental question raised by Plato
and
his successors down the ages [is] whether the 'revolutions' of an
invisible circulation in space sometimes affect the Earth.' Clube's
model has been enthusiastically embraced by Fred Hoyle. Taurid
influence on ancient religion should be sought in lore associated
with
storm gods (whose activities heretofore have not concerned Velikovsky-
inspired researchers).
"Although the imagery NECESSARILY engendered by Clube's model of
Earth
interacting with the Taurid complex is neither fully described by him
nor readily imagined by most non-specialist readers, Moe Mandelkehr
has
developed a feasible physical model in the context of Clube's general
scenario, as I announced at Haliburton in 1992 and as Mandelkehr
alluded
elsewhere [C&CR XIV (1992) 37], that FULLY accounts for ALL the
mythic
imagery juggled so maladroitly by "Saturnists" in their polar
configuration fantasy. Like Bob Kobres, whose 'Comets and the Bronze
Age Collapse' appeared in C&C Workshop '92:1, Mandelkehr's Taurid
complex researches began independent of Clube & Napier's parallel
work.
As Mandelkehr suggested in his three papers in the British Velikovsky
Journal [SISR V:3 (1980/81), C&CR IX (1987) & C&CR X (1988)], Earth
participated in some spectacular celestial fireworks ca. 2300 B.C.
His
detailed envisioning of the IMAGERY is elucidated in THE ANSWERED
RIDDLE: A Thesis on the Meaning of Myth (unpub. ms.) which he has
shared
with Ellenberger on a confidential basis pending its acceptance for
publication. Rest assured Mandelkehr delivers the goods in a way
that
will leave the 'Saturnists' dumbfounded." THE ANSWERED RIDDLE was
revised and updated and published in 2006 with the new title THE 2300
BC
EVENT. By way of background, Mandelkehr has a B.S. and M.S. in
electrical
engineering from University of Kansas and an M.S. in systems
engineering
and operations research from Penn. He is currently retired after 35
years in
concept development of advanced military systems at RCA Government
Division.
For those unfamiliar with the "coherent catastrophism" espoused by the
British astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier with co-workers and
embraced by Irish tree-ring specialist Mike Baillie, check out the
Wikipedia entries
for them: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Clube> and
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Baillie>.
>
> --
> If you follow the fighting in Israel you have to come to the conclusion that
> the government, the newspapers and the resistance groups have each other on
> their speed dials.
> -- The Iron Webmaster, 3939
> http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.htmla4
FWIW: Although I may be a "newbie" to this group, as another poster
noted, I have been an
occasional poster to Usenet groups, both by proxy and directly since
April 1994, which
activity contributed to someone unknonw to me with the screen name
"First Base" thinking I was "notable"
enuf to merit an entry in Wikipedia.
C. Leroy Ellenberger, formerly senior editor for Kronos and confidant
to Velikovsky, 4/78-11/79,
and in recent years credited as being "Velikovsky's most unrelenting
critic".
"Worlds Still Colliding": <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/
velstcol.html>
Uwe Müller
> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:21:21 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>news:039is3dk3tpkp76n6...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:34:19 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
>>> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>>>news:4amhs3pt3omb9iins...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 01:56:42 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
>>>>> <uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
> snip >
>>>> What would such an impact explain, if it could be supported by
>>>>evidence?
>>>
>>> It's not necessary to have an impact with anything more than the
>>> atmosphere. It doesn't have to be an impact with the ground. All it
>>> needs be is the collision with clouds of dust and small (?) debris.
>>> Such impacts could explain collapse of civilisations and sudden
>>> climate change.
>>
>>You just ruled out the possibility that a non-detectable impact could have
>>any noticeable effect on cultures.
>>Science ruled out the possibility, that a detectable impact was of more
>>than
>>of local importance.
>
> I think that you are continuing to make the mistake of arguing that
> the fact that we currently have no evidence (and I'm not sure that
> that is true) of impact-related events 4300 years ago means that there
> were no such events.
>>
>>Wouldn't it be time to establish some sort of positive connection between
>>an
>>impact and the sort of phenomena, that are used as indicators for the
>>'collaps of civilisations'? And not only in the putattive case, 'could
>>explain'?
>
> 'Could explain' is all that is so often cited. Consider
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080229-servir-maya.html
>
> "Maya may have induced their own destruction"
Compare a site, where they are doing the basic research first
http://www.chiemgau-impact.com/
> snip>
have fun
Uwe Miueller
Peter Alaca
> Compare a site, where they are doing the basic research first
> http://www.chiemgau-impact.com/
Great site Uwe. Thanks
--
p.a.
W. Sheppard Baird
Dear Leroy,
Lets take Baille's 540 AD dendrochronolgy event first. His conclusion
that the 540 AD event must have an extraterrestrial cause is based
entirely on the assumption that there were no large volcanic eruptions
at the time that could reasonably account for the climate downturn.
Evidently someone hasn't been keeping up with their volcanology. The
premise that there were no large volcanic eruptions at that time is
currently known to be utterly false.
Please take a look at the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program's
chronological list of "Large Holocene Eruptions" of VEI 4 or greater
that ranges from about 10,000 BC to Present.
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
Any one of several large eruptions could have coalesced in the
timeframe of 540 BC including the very large eruption (VEI - 6) of
Rabaul, New Britain. The same is true for 208 BC and 1159 BC. The 1628
BC dendrochronolgy event is obviously the massive (VEI - 7) eruption
of Thera (Santorini) in the Aegean.
I'm not saying that it isn't possible that exterrestrial material can
affect the earth's climate. What I am saying is that if the earth's
climate was significantly affected by this material there should be
some evidence of it on the earth's surface. Theories need to be
founded on sound, verifiable evidence if they are to survive for long.
Eric Stevens
<minoana...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, c.le...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>
>Dear Leroy,
>
>Lets take Baille's 540 AD dendrochronolgy event first. His conclusion
>that the 540 AD event must have an extraterrestrial cause is based
>entirely on the assumption that there were no large volcanic eruptions
>at the time that could reasonably account for the climate downturn.
Not so, I'm afraid.
>Evidently someone hasn't been keeping up with their volcanology. The
>premise that there were no large volcanic eruptions at that time is
>currently known to be utterly false.
>
>Please take a look at the Smithsonian Global Volcanism Program's
>chronological list of "Large Holocene Eruptions" of VEI 4 or greater
>that ranges from about 10,000 BC to Present.
>
>http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/largeeruptions.cfm
>
>Any one of several large eruptions could have coalesced in the
>timeframe of 540 BC including the very large eruption (VEI - 6) of
>Rabaul, New Britain. The same is true for 208 BC and 1159 BC. The 1628
>BC dendrochronolgy event is obviously the massive (VEI - 7) eruption
>of Thera (Santorini) in the Aegean.
>
>I'm not saying that it isn't possible that exterrestrial material can
>affect the earth's climate. What I am saying is that if the earth's
>climate was significantly affected by this material there should be
>some evidence of it on the earth's surface. Theories need to be
>founded on sound, verifiable evidence if they are to survive for long.
There is little doubt that there was volcanic activity ca 540AD. There
is no doubt that there are traces in the ice cores of activity which
cannot be attributed just to vulcanism. So what is the real
explanation?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<uwemu...@go4more.de> wrote:
See Message-ID: <pj22m252rnmal7sdh...@4ax.com>
I am already aware of Chiemgau.
Eric Stevens
JerryT
From; http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/j/i/26.htm
''A cosmic index has been constructed based on siderophile elements
such as nickel and chromium, and rare earth elements. This index, in
addition to the influx of micro-spherules etc. show that the cosmic
influx has been high in several periods i.e. c. 7000 BC, 3000 BC, 2300
BC, 1700 BC, 1000 BC, 500 BC, 550 AD, 850 AD, 1300 AD and around the
peak of "The Little Ice Age".''
Where and what is hard to tell, but that it was extraterrestial.
JerryT
snip
Uwe Müller
"JerryT" <cg...@post.utfors.se> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:67f51282-a892-4361...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On 3 Mar, 06:55, c.le...@rocketmail.com wrote:
> snip >
>From; http://atlas-conferences.com/c/a/j/i/26.htm
>''A cosmic index has been constructed based on siderophile elements
>such as nickel and chromium, and rare earth elements. This index, in
>addition to the influx of micro-spherules etc. show that the cosmic
>influx has been high in several periods i.e. c. 7000 BC, 3000 BC, 2300
>BC, 1700 BC, 1000 BC, 500 BC, 550 AD, 850 AD, 1300 AD and around the
>peak of "The Little Ice Age".''
>Where and what is hard to tell, but that it was extraterrestial.
>JerryT
The notion was, that there are elements, which are not completely of a
terrestrial origin. If you order the analysed probes according to their
content of these elements, primarily nickel and chrome, and add microscopic
residue likely to come from extra terrestrial sources, you get peaks of
influx.
This does not mean that there is necessarily a conection between the
elements and the residue, apart from being added to illustrate a notion. Nor
does it mean, that the material in question necessarily fell on the bogs
probed. They are carefull to use the word influx, meaning they don't know
how it got there.
Another important question, how precise is the dating, isn't even addressed.
They give a minimum variation of 50 years, which would indicate some high
precision dating. If otoh they dated according to pollen variations the
dates given are little more than labels for a strata in the bogs. And these
strata, are they in undisturbed layers (the bog was not hit by
extraterrestrial matter), or were they in layers that have been 'rearranged'
by an impact, giving no clue about when they formed?
One last question popping up in my mind is, if they do not say anything
about changes in the ecosystems of the bogs, changes in vegetation, humidity
and possibly ground relief come to mind, does it mean that they have noted
no such changes, i.e. that the impact oft he impacts on the ecosystem of the
bog was neglible?
It sounds nice, but there are more questions than answers.
> snip >
have fun
Uwe Mueller
JerryT
> "JerryT" <c...@post.utfors.se> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:67f51282-a892-4361...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
This may be of interest
http://www.mires-and-peat.net/map01/map_1_3.pdf
JerryT
W. Sheppard Baird
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:41:43 -0800 (PST), "W. Sheppard Baird"
>
W. Sheppard Baird
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Eric,
Could you refer me to a source for a detailed analysis of these trace
elements in the 540 AD ice core layers that specifies their identity
and concentrations. I'm assuming they are rare earth elements like
iridium, etc.
Thanks much,
Eric Stevens
In this case its absence of evidence is evidence of ... ???
Here is what Mike Baillie has to say in book 'Exodus to Arthur'
============================================================
However, though the Irish trees did show a narrow ring in AD 536, the
really narrow event — the narrowest rings — occurred in 540—1. Why was
there a delay in the onset of the really extreme conditions? Questions
like these raised the possibility of multiple eruptions: that is, was
there one dust-veil in 536 and another a few year later? But the
strangeness of the event was heightened considerably when it was found
that the date of the Greenland acidity layer, in the Dye 3 core, which
was given as 540+/-10 in 1980, had been changed to 516+/-4 by Claus
Hammer in 1984. From the historical records it was clear that there
was a major dry-fog event in AD 536, with tree-ring effects
afterwards; this movement of the ice acidity layer to AD 516 cast
serious doubt on the ice-core chronology in the sixth century AD. In
the wider ice-core record around this critical time, the original
Crete core stopped at AD 553+/-3 and the Camp Century core turned out
to be unusable down to the first century AD. This means that, until
recently, the ice-core information for the sixth century AD relied
solely on the Dye 3 core. Moving the 540+/-10 acid layer by 24 years
meant that there was no good evidence for a layer of volcanic acid at
AD 540; but surely there must have been a volcano at 540, the
tree-rings events are volcanic, are they not?
With this situation in mind, the results of the early 1990s GISP2
(American) and GRIP (Danish) cores from Summit, Greenland, were
awaited with interest. Unfortunately, preliminary results from the
GISP2 core indicated no significantly enhanced acidity in the annual
layers attributed to the years around AD 536-40. Then in 1983
something happened which served to colour my judgement still further
on the nature of the AD 540 phenomenon. In the summer of 1983 I called
on Greg Zielinski at the University of New Hampshire. Greg was heavily
involved in the analysis of the GISP2 core and showed me many of the
available results which were astounding, to say the least. As noted
earlier, individual annual layers could be resolved back to beyond
40,000 years. While there I gave a talk for the postgraduate students
on the tree-ring/volcano story, ending up with the AD 540 event as
outlined so far. In particular I discussed why the ice-core evidence
was critical to establish if more than one volcano was involved. After
the talk one of the postgraduates called up the analysis data for the
sixth century AD on his computer; another student, Greg and myself
were also in the room. 'That's funny, we have 14 metres of missing
record,' said the postgrad. 'No, we do not,' said Greg. 'Yes we do,'
said the postgrad. 'There are no analyses between AD 614 and 545.'
Having just given a talk stressing why the sixth century was
interesting and how the ice-core evidence was critical to
understanding what had actually happened around AD 540, I was
witnessing the revelation that most of the record of the sixth century
was missing; 14 m (46 ft) of core equal to about seventy annual
layers. Moreover, it was apparent that the extent of the missing core
had not been fully appreciated even by the ice-core workers
themselves. The GISP2 core is a full 3 km (2 miles) in length, made up
of 1500 consecutive 2-metre (6.5 ft) lengths ... and the only
significant bit that was lost was in the sixth century AD - 14 metres,
just where the tree-rings indicated something interesting. As I was
pondering this, the other student spoke up: 'Oh yes, I remember that,
I was up on the ice at that time ... Elvis was up on the ice, all
sorts of stuff was going down, the core was trashed, motors [the drill
is a self-contained, motor-driven, 2-metre coring unit dropped on a
hawser] were burning out ... there was carbon in the drill hole ...'
There are times when real life out-does science fiction. It could be
that just by ill luck the American team had run into problems at that
point in the coring. It could be that the carbon had come from the
burnt-out motor in the drill rig and that Elvis was indeed up on the
ice-cap at that time. If it was not just coincidental ill luck then
something might have affected the ice in the sixth century AD and the
carbon in the drill hole might not be from the motor; what then? Greg
and the students kindly checked the daily logs which confirmed that
each of seven consecutive two-metre sections had come up 'trashed',
that is, as shattered ice. The longest stretch of lost ice in more
than 3000 metres (9842 ft) had indeed been lost in the sixth century
AD. This missing 14-metre section, between c. AD 614 (+/-15) and c. AD
545 (+/-15), introduces a slight imponderable into the dating of the
core below the missing section and it is not beyond the bounds of
possibility that the existing GISP2 core does not cover the AD 536-45
period at all.
The coincidence of'problems' with no less than three ice-core records
in the sixth century - Crete stops at AD 553+/-5; Dye 3 has the AD 540
to 516 'redating' and GISP2 has a 'lost' section — is hard to swallow.
There simply must be something going on, especially as the
significance of the period had been stressed in advance. I had even
been to a conference in Hawaii in 1992 to tell the vulcanologists and
ice-core workers of the possibilities of multiple eruptions around AD
540 and to ask that special attention be paid to this period.
(Incidentally, I discount another possibility, which is that the CIA
have been systematically trashing the cores around AD 540 to cover up
the existence of debris from a crashed UFO.)
However, fortunately, a fallback situation exists. The Danish GRIP
core (also 3 km (2 miles) long and from a site just 30 km (19 miles)
from the GISP2 location) may provide the answers when the results of
its detailed analysis become available. The Danes appear not to have
lost any of their core,so a continuous record across the sixth century
does exist. So far only an electrical conductivity survey (used to
pick up strong acid, that is, volcanic signals) has been carried out
on this section, but, interestingly, they see no large acid signal
across the AD 536—45 period. It looks increasingly as if a volcano
(still less volcanoes) was not the cause of the AD 540 environmental
event. This raises a lot of questions, and Harke has picked up on this
issue in the context of those anomalous eclipse records in the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in AD 538 and 540. He posits that:
the entire northern hemisphere was affected in the late 530s by a
sudden climatic deterioration caused either by a major volcanic
eruption (Baillie's suggestion) or by dust-veils from a cometary
impact (Victor Clube's suggestion).
If the ice-core evidence is correct and there is no significant
acidity layer in the Greenland ice around AD 540 then Clube's
suggestions will have to be taken seriously, and we would have to
decide how one might separate ancient descriptions of the effects of
volcanoes from those of cometary impacts. Bailey, Clube and Napier
have already suggested that in their view the Earth was at increased
risk of bombardment in the interval AD 400-600. There can be no doubt
that some momentous happening took place in the early- to mid-sixth
century AD, but we do not know definitively the cause (or causes).
However, the sixth century is as yesterday in geological time;
something which could happen then could happen now. It is important
that this event be fully understood, whether it be volcanic or
meteoric, or indeed something we have simply not thought of. We will
see in later chapters that it is possible to put together a very
interesting circumstantial case for what may actually have happened.
===========================================================
You will see from the above that answering the question is very much a
work in progress. I don't know the current state of the work on ice
cores for the period ca 540AD but it may be that there is physical
evidence (impact damage and significant physical remains over a wide
area) in the ice cores for the relevant times.
Eric Stevens
c.l...@rocketmail.com
wrote:
Dear Sheppard,
I have looked at the list of eruptions whose URL you give. However,
what the list fails to indicate is that, while the Minoan eruption of
Thera
in late 17th century B.C.
and the 19th century eruptions of Tambora (1815) and Krakatau (1883)
all produced
significant acidity signals in the Greenland ice, there is no
*significant*
acidity signal in that ice for the 6th century A.D. no acidity signal
at all close
to A.D. 540. The GRIP and GISP ice cores
from Summit Camp have been accurately dated by counting annual layers
and
the dating of acidity signals does not require the wide leeway you
impute to such
records. When the dim Sun and the "mystery cloud"
at AD 536 was first reported in Nature in 1984, Raup & Sepkoski
attributed it
possibly to Rabaul. Catastrophe (2000) by David Keys ascribes the 6th
century
climate crisis to a super-eruption of Krakatau. But not only was the
Sun dim for 18 months at this
time, but the global climate crisis, based on multiple tree-ring
records showing narrow rings, lasted at least a decade. If all recent
major eruptions
"show up" with significant acidity signals in Greenland ice, and the
6th century
climate crisis was the result of an eruption, then why is there no
volcanic acidity
signal in Greenland? It is for this reason that Mike Baillie has
focussed his recent
efforts on supporting an "impact" scenario involving the Taurid-Encke
complex, as he
and Patrick McCafferty explain fully in their The Celtic Gods: Comets
in Irish Mythology
(2005). The link to Comet Encke is based on the descriptions of key
Celtic gods having
cometary attributes plus the fact that the times between key events
and/or returns of a
"god" are all year lengths that correspond to the time-table resulting
from the intersection
of a body with an Encke-like orbit with Earth's orbit.
Incidentally, the March/April issue of Science Illustrated has an
article on the dating
for the Minoan eruption of Thera/Santorini, pp. 46-53. The ice core
date of 1645 B.C. announced
in 1987 has been revised to 1642 B.C. The C-14 date based on branches
of wood
trapped in the tephra is between 1627 and 1600 B.C. The article does
not mention
the bristlecone pine frost-ring date of 1628 B.C. reported by LaMarche
and Hirschboeck
in 1984 and later corroborated by the several European oak
chronologies, including the
Irish oak record compiled by Baillie. Interestingly, the article does
not mention the 1610 B.C.
date listed for Santorini in the Smithsonian Holocene database. The
Science Illustrated
article also serves to illustrate the discrepancies that can arise in
attempting to date
precisely a major event using different dating procedures. The URL
below my sign-off is for
a letter to the editor of Sky & Telescope in 1997 responding to an
article by Brad Schaefer
whose historical survey started AFTER comets had ceased to be a
significant threat to
our ancestors. The sky lore inherited by Aristotle did not correspond
to the sky he saw
and he therefore set about to rationalize it. As Stanley Jaki
describes in his book The
Milky Way, at some early time prior to Aristotle the zodiacal light
was more prominent
in the night sky than the Milky Way due to the fact, as explained by
Victor Clube, that
when the Taurid meteor streams were young, their disintegrations
filled up the inner
Solar System with so much dust that the zodiacal light was a lot
brighter than it is now.
All the best,
C. Leroy Ellenberger
"Are Comets Evil?"
<http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html#ST>
c.l...@rocketmail.com
2002
indicated that the "cosmic index" was based on "enhanced
concentrations
of micro-meteorites". Me thinks Uwe Mueller doth protest too much or
at least creates uncertainty where none exists.
On Mar 4, 4:25 am, "Uwe Müller" <uwemuel...@go4more.de> wrote:
> "JerryT" <c...@post.utfors.se> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:67f51282-a892-4361...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Here is what I reported in the web version of my "An Antidote to
Velikovskian Delusions":
[Work by Lars G. Franzen at Earth Sciences Centre, Goteberg, Sweden,
confirms most of Baillie's dates. Enhanced concentrations of micro-
meteorites in peat from Swedish, Irish, and Norwegian bogs show that
the cosmic influx was high at 7000 BC, 3000 BC, 2300 BC, 1700 BC, 1000
BC, 500 BC, 550 AD, 850 AD, 1300 AD and the peak of the "Little Ice
Age" (Conference: Environmental Catastrophes and Recoveries in the
Holocene, Aug. 29--Sep. 2, 2002, Dept. of Geography & Earth Sciences,
Brunel University, Uxbridge, U.K.).]
From: <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html>
>
> > snip >
>
> have fun
> Uwe Mueller
Oh, there is much "fun" to be had, Uwe. It's too bad that
you are so married to conventional "thinking" that you are
unwilling to enjoy it!
Cheers,
C. Leroy Ellenberger
St. Louis, MO
Matt Giwer
> On Feb 29, 2:17 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> I might be able to answer you better when I have read the books. FYI,
>>> I am not carrying a flag for Mandlekehr's hypothesis. We shall have to
>>> see.
>> Didn't that magic "debris" going into orbit ring a bell? Has no one noticed
>> after all these decades of NASA reports that entering orbit requires a velocity
>> change?
>
> There is nothing inherently impossible about Earth acquiring a ring,
> which is nothing more
> than a concentration of natural satellites distributed entirely around
> us..
The claim is from meteorites. Therefore it is not possible.
If velocity is changed by atmospheric drag then it enters the atmosphere much
lower on the next orbit. Surviving for more than two orbits would be a
statistical anomaly. Thus it is ridiculous to describe the event as a ring.
However, if you conclude otherwise please feel free to respond in the proper
language of orbital mechanics instead of handwaving declarations.
--
Suriving anything, even a holocaust, cannot elevate a devil to sainthood.
Mere survival does not grant moral authority.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3946
http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/bombings.phtml a5
Inger E. J
"W. Sheppard Baird" <minoana...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:cb54d391-18f5-4400...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Dear Eric,
Thanks much,
W. Sheppard Baird
IEJ: the ice core reading aren't exact. As everyone above 5th grade knows or
should have learnt, ice in Arctic/Antarctic as well as in glaciaers around
the world, aren't located in a fix place but drift around much much more
than the movements in continental plates. This means that you can't go down
from a certain testplace today and find the ice below you as the ice was in
that certain place (longitude and latitude) any time in Ages in the past.
/IEJ
IEJ(continue): It seems as if there aren't any good maps around showing the
devation over time of Polar stations with texts written in English. Anyhow
Ice sheets as well as all layers of the Ice under a certain place are
constantly moving in order to get to the lowest point close to sea as soon
as possible. This is one of several important factors which makes it almost
impossible to use any ice core-values IF one takes them as facts and not as
possible views of the past. On the other hand dendrocronology isn't as
certain as one might believe provided that the results is'nt very carefully
handed. For any given location you might get local results close by which
doesn't give the same thickness in rings etc due to the complex biotopic
situations in nature. That said, I do believe the readings for events in
2300 BC are significant enough to be taken more seriously into
consideration. If the readings can be confirmed in other 'stuff' than ice
cores and trees, then it's more than likely that 'something' did happen.
Question of what remains to be solved./Inger E
Eric Stevens
See my response to W. Sheppard Baird who has replied to the same post
that you have just replied to.
Eric Stevens
W. Sheppard Baird
> On Mar 3, 6:41 pm, "W. Sheppard Baird" <minoanatlan...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
Dear Leroy,
I found the ice core acidity data for the Greenland Ice Core Project/
Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GRIP/GISP) from the PANGAEA® Publishing
Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data.
Clausen, Henrik B; Wolff, Eric W (1999): GRIP Acidity, PANGAEA, doi:
10.1594/PANGAEA.55083
at the following link:
http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.55083?format=html
Is this the data the hypothesis is based on? If so, could you indicate
the "Age [kyr BP]" entry(s) for the specific acidity data for 540 AD
you are referring to. If not could you please refer me to additional,
more accurate sources of data.
Also, could you indicate your scientific sources that provide a
foundation for your assumption that "all recent major eruptions 'show
up' with significant acidity signals in Greenland ice". I have heard
that this is dependent on a number of variables and is not necessarily
true.
c.l...@rocketmail.com
Again you rise to challenge the accuracy of my reporting. Now what is
common knowledge in the ice core research community and to the readers
of Science and Nature.
On Mar 5, 9:07 am, "W. Sheppard Baird" <minoanatlan...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 4, 5:41 pm, c.le...@rocketmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Mar 3, 6:41 pm, "W. Sheppard Baird" <minoanatlan...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> Dear Leroy,
>
> I found the ice core acidity data for the Greenland Ice Core Project/
> Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GRIP/GISP) from the PANGAEA® Publishing
> Network for Geoscientific & Environmental Data.
>
> Clausen, Henrik B; Wolff, Eric W (1999): GRIP Acidity, PANGAEA, doi:
> 10.1594/PANGAEA.55083
>
> at the following link:
>
> http://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.55083?format=html
>
> Is this the data the hypothesis is based on? If so, could you indicate
> the "Age [kyr BP]" entry(s) for the specific acidity data for 540 AD
> you are referring to. If not could you please refer me to additional,
> more accurate sources of data.
My remarks about the volcanic acidity signals in the Greenland ice
cores were based on Mike Baillie's discussion in New Light on the
Black
Death (2006), wherein he gives citation to the relevant technical
reports,
and which I shall recap after having a chance to access the book in my
library at home. N.B.: I access email only at the libraries of Wash.
Univ.
in St. Louis.
>
> Also, could you indicate your scientific sources that provide a
> foundation for your assumption that "all recent major eruptions 'show
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"assumption"? There was no assumption whatsoever. The claim was
based on a reading of the relevant reports in Science and Nature, as
follows:
Hammer et al., Nature 288, 230-235 (1980)
Dansgaard et al., Science 218, 1273-77 (1982)
Zielinski, G. et al., "Record of Volcanism since 7000 BC from the
GISP2 Greenland Ice Core...", Science 264, 948-52 (1994).
> up' with significant acidity signals in Greenland ice". I have heard
> that this is dependent on a number of variables and is not necessarily
> true.
The simple fact of the matter is that for every attested/witnessed
major/large
eruption in the past 4000 years or so there exists a significant
sulfuric
acid signal in the Greenland ice cores taken from Camp Century, Dye 3
and
the GISP/GRIP cores retreived from Summit Camp most recently. This is
the
case for Vesuvius in AD79, Tambora in AD1815, and Krakatau in AD1883.
Admittedly, this is circumstantial since the acidity signal in
Greenland cannot
be identified with the volcanic source and, while the tephra from
every volcano
would provide a unique chemical composition, no tephra from these
eruptions
has been recovered in Greenland, although tephra from eruptions closer
to
Greenland has been recovered from the ice containing acidity signals
from some
of those other eruptions.
To reply to poster IEJ, the Summit Camp cores are not subject to the
flow factors and
the resulting distortion of conditions mentioned because the site is
located on the "ice
divide", the location at the center of the ice cap from which all
spreading
originates.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> W. Sheppard Baird
>
> http://www.minoanatlantis.com
All the best,
C. Leroy Ellenberger, "Per Veritatem Vis"
"An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions"
c.l...@rocketmail.com
concerning
the lack of an adequate volcanic signal in the Greenland ice at
AD540.
This infomration is produced below:
My apologies for misstating the correct source. In New Light on the
Black Death (2006), Baillie does not get into the missing acidity
signal for AD 540, but rather discusses the ammonium anomalies in
the Greenland ice at AD 539, AD 1014 and AD 1908. The second largest
ammonium signal in the ice since 150 BC occurred in AD 539, with the
largest in AD 1014. "So, if Tunguska caused an ammonium anomaly in
1908, then, when we go back to 1014 and 539, impact events have to be
a _possible_ explanation for the large ammonium spikes there. . . .
What
makes 1014 particularly intriguing is that the date is listed by
astronomers
Sekanina and Yeomans as a year when a comet made a relatively close
approach of the earth" (pp. 118-121).
Baillie discusses the missing acidity in his contribution to Peter T.
Bobrowsky
and Hans Rickman (Editors), Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society:
An Interdisciplinary Approach (Springer-Verlag, 2007), namely, Chapter
5:
"Tree-Rings Indicate Global Environmental Downturns that could have
been
Caused by Comet Debris", pp. 105-122, with the relevant discussion at
pp.
106-107:
So, what can cause a global environmental downturn? Several things
were known from the historical record. There was a severe 'dry fog'
in 546-537, assumed by volcanologists to be the dust-veil associated
with a large volcanic eruption (Stothers and Rampino 1983; Stothers
1984). There were famines in China and in the Mediterranean region
in the later 530s. A major plague, named after the Emperor
Justinian,
broke out around 540 and arrived in Constantinople in 542,
thereafter
killing perhaps one third of Europe's population. In terms of casue,
all
the initial thinking, following Stothers and Rampino, involved
volcanoes.
Was the event the result of an exceptional volcanic eruption that
produced unusual levels of atmospheric aerosol? Was there more than
one large volcano involved? Here it is necessary to turn from tree-
rings
and history to the ice-core record from Greenland. A preliminary
analysis of the ice records raised questions about linking a
volcano
to the event (Baillie 1994). It is now known, on the basis of three
replicated ice cores (Dye3, GRIP and NGRIP), that there is no
signifi-
cant volcanic-acid signal in the time window 536-545 (Clausen et al.
1997). The latest statement states specifically:
With the chemistry and the isotope data it is possible to do a
very precise dating for the eruption. The volcanic eruption is
dated to AD 527+/-1 year. The AD 527 volcanic eruption is
the only eruption in the period (Larsen et al. 2002).
The authors go on to say that this volcano is the only likely
candidate
to have caused the 536-545 global event, but that the dating
'suggest(s)
that the event is not the same one described by other
sources' (Larsen
et al. 2002). There are two ways to deal with this observation. One
option
is to disregard the dating by the ice-core workers and simply assume
that
527+/-1 really _means_ 536 or 540 -- there are currently no
compelling
arguments for moving the date derived from three replicated ice-
cores in
this manner. The other is to make the more logical jump, namely that
the
global environmental downturn was not volcanic in origin, but rather
was
caused by loading of the atmosphere from another source, presumably
from space. Such a suggestion immediately reduces to the idea that
around 536-545 we most probably had a brush with a comet or its
debris.
This is the logical step that this author made after 1994. Instead
of asking
the historical record what happened around 540 -- a question that
pro-
duces almost no answer -- the question was re-worded as 'we suspect
that
the Earth had a bruch with a comet -- what do the records say'? Let
us
look at what the records do say and be prepared to 'read between the
lines' of the only relevant historical records.
Selected References
Baillie MGL (1994) Dendrochronology raises questions about the nature
of the
AD 536 dust-veil event. The Holocene 4:212-217.
Clausen HB et al. (1997) A comparison of the volcanic records over the
past
4000 years from the Greenland Ice Core Project and Dye 3 Greenland
ice
cores. Journal of Geophysical Research 102(C12):26707-26723.
Larsen LB et al. (2002) The sixth century climatic catastrophe told by
ice
cores. Abstract from the 2002 Brunel University Conference
Environmental
Catastrophes and Recoveries in the Holocene 29 Aug -- 2 Sept 2002
(avail-
able at Atlas Conferences Inc. Document #caiq-21).
Of related interest would be the article "A comet impact in AD 536?"
by Emma
Rigby, Melissa Symonds and Derek Ward-Thompson in Astronomy &
Geophysics
February 2004; 45:23-26, which reports that the climate crisis
affected tree rings
in Irish oaks, Fennoscandian pines, North American bristlecone pines,
Mongolian
tree-rings and also Argentinian tree-rings, giving citations, which
makes the event
clearly global in extent. Concerning a volcanic vector, they report:
"The super-
volcano theory has several problems. Firstly, no terrestrial volcano
can be satis-
factorily identified with this event. Secondly, a super-volcano wuold
be expected
to produce significant acidity in the atmosphere. This acidity would
be recorded
in the polar ice caps. Numerous ice-core studies have been carried out
in both
Greenland and Antarctica (see, for example, Clausen et al. 1997,
Hammer et al.
1997). None of these has found evidence for a significant acid layer
around 536
of the sort that would be caused by the eruption of a super-volcano.
"There are small acid layers associated with 528 and 533, but they
are not
sufficiently strong that they can be related to a super-volcano
(Clausen et al.
1997). In addition, there is an Antarctic ice acid layer dated as
504+/-40
(Hammer et al. 1997), which has been argued could be related to the
536
event (Keys 1999). However, once again this is not the depth of layer
that one
would expect of a super-volcano (Baillie 1999). Other measurements
have proved
inconclusive. For example, in one case an ice core borke up across the
crucial
period (Zielinski et al. 1994) and in another the exact dating proved
controversial
(Hammer 1984)."
References:
Baillie MGL 1999 Exodus to Arthur, Batsford.
Clausen HB et al. 1997 J. Geophys. Res. 102: 707-24.
Hammer CU 1984 Jokull 34: 51-56.
Hammer CU et al. 1997 Climatic Change 35: 1-15.
Keys D 1999 Catastrophe: an Investigation into the Origins of the
Modern World,
Century.
Zielinski GA et al. 1994 Science 264: 948-52.
One reason why the historical record is so barren concerning the sky-
borne
origins of the AD 540 climate crisis is that, as Hoyle and
Wickramasinghe pointed
out in 1993, "By about the sixth century AD, Christian beliefs
included the dogma
that nothing that happens in the heavens could have any conceivable
effect on
the Earth." And Baillie (2007) remarks "Perhaps thsi is the reason why
early medieval
churchmen felt that they could only express themselves metaphorically;
to talk about
goings on in the sky overtly woudl have been to go against Church
dogma. It would
appear, however, that some felt sufficiently motivated by events to
circumvent the
dogma and to leave clues for anyone who, for whatever reason, mgiht
recognize the
significance of the biblical quotations. Thus, when our
interpreatation of the tree-ring
data indicated a sixth-century, global, environmental event, and the
ice cores
indicated, by default, that it might have been extraterrestrial in
origin, the metaphors
finally made sense" (pp. 115-116).
C. Leroy Ellenberger
"Are Comets Evil?"
<http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html#ST>
[snip]
Inger E. J
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:7hmss31u04690lk8d...@4ax.com...
That's ok Eric, I have some factors to add only have to wait until the
weekend when I get hold of the book I don't own but which I had to study
myself when studying Geology, Oceanography and such within my enlarged
Geography course.
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
c.l...@rocketmail.com
to a paper proposing that the Chiemgau impact motivated the myth
of Phaethon whose impact supposedly occurred in the first
millennium B.C. However, Phaethon's ride has also been argued
to have happened earlier in the second millennium B.C.
According to Bob Kobres in "Comet Phaethon's Ride":
"Though definitive dating of protohistoric impact events can only come
from careful stratigraphic work, there are some rather strong
indicators that a nasty encounter such as suggested here occurred
about 1159 B.C.E. This is not an arbitrary date for it marks the
beginning of a sharp decline in the annual growth of Irish bog oak
which lasted almost two decades and for that reason stands out in the
over seven thousand year long dendrochronological record based on this
species of tree (see M.G.L. Baillie and M.A.R. Munro 1988). The middle
of the twelfth century also, according to widely accepted chronologies
based on eclectic sources (such as Egyptian), marks a time period of
general discord. A stark specimen of pertinent tie-in is related to
chapter ten in the book of Joshua, where perhaps the most widely known
mention of helio-halting occurs (Joshua 10: 12-14)."
Kobres's full paper can be read at <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/
phaeth.html>
and a shorter version was published in the Feb. 1995 The World & I.
According
to Kobres, Phaethon was a post-perihelion comet on an Encke-like orbit
who,
to an observor in the Mediterranean, rose as the Sun for six hours,
then appeared
to stand still for about half an hour while doubling in diameter (it's
coming toward
Earth), and then crashing to the horizon in about 15 minutes as it
passed
closely behind us. While the comet did not crash into the ground, the
destruction
described by Ovid in his Metamorphoses was the result of impacts qua
aerial
detonations a la Tunguska from smaller debris accompanying Phaethon,
as Kobres discusses. Given a Mediterranean provenance for Ovid's
observer,
it is interesting to note that we are inheritors of complementary
accounts of
this event as it would appear to observors in the Orient and
Mesoamerica, granting,
of course, that the simultaneity is circumstantial.
On Mar 3, 4:41 pm, "Uwe Müller" <uwemuel...@go4more.de> wrote:
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:1jpjs3hntrne27vg4...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:21:21 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
> > <uwemuel...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
> >>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >>news:039is3dk3tpkp76n6...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:34:19 +0100, "Uwe Müller"
> >>> <uwemuel...@go4more.de> wrote:
>
> >>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> Compare a site, where they are doing the basic research firsthttp://www.chiemgau-impact.com/
>
> > snip>
>
> have fun
>
> Uwe Miueller- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
C. Leroy Ellenberger
"An Antidote to Velikovskian Delusions"
which cites Kobres on Phaethon's Ride in 1st Paragraph
<http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html>
Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of subscribers to
>sci.archaeolgy to the probability that, in accordance with the
>theories of Clube, Napier, Baillie et al some of the physical evidence
>that has been found by archaeologist may be the consequence of
>planetary bombardment by cometary debris. It has just been brought to
>my attention that Moe has published a book in three paper back volumes
>which addresses this in more detail. Mandelkehr has been working on
>this topic for more than 20 years so whatever has collected is likely
>to be interesting.
>
>For an outline of Mandelkehr's analysis see http://www.2300bc.com/
>
> THE 2300 BC EVENT - A TAPESTRY OF DESTRUCTION
>
> by Moe Mandelkehr
>
> This book presents a story of a devastation that the Earth
> experienced at about 2300 BC. If one was inclined to issue
> dramatic statements, it could be said that the event was the
> most significant in all of man’s history -- and that the course
> of history might have been changed. All advanced civilizations
> at that time were terminated, and did not recover for hundreds
> of years.
>
> The advanced cultures were located in Anatolia (Turkey),
> Greece, Egypt, the Middle East, India and Central Asia. Two
> geophysical events happened at 2300 BC – 1) most settlements
> were violently destroyed by earthquake; and 2) the climate
> became abruptly dry in these regions, inhibiting agricultural
> activity that was essential for survival. Journal papers have
> been written on the event and symposia have been held – without
> answers.
>
> Analogous conditions occurred for all regions of less sophisticated
> cultures – Europe, Asia, Africa, the Americas, the Arctic, the Far
> East and the Pacific Ocean. Strong climatic and geological
> transients at this time were noted in all regions. Previous
> cultures disappeared at this point, and new cultures appeared.
> Sites over wide areas were destroyed or abandoned.
>
> [More]
>
>Leroy Ellenberger has written to Mike Baillie with copies to a number
>of others (and I have his permission to quote him):
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Mike, I recently learned that Moe Mandelkehr's
>long-awaited book _The 2300 B.C. Event_ was published
>recently. Many have cited his 1983 introductory paper
>in SIS Review on this event and now the whole story is
>available in one source, albeit in three vols. The
>book may already have been advertised or announced in
>some SIS publication.
>
>Mandelkehr posits that at 2300 B.C., almost certainly
>the tree-ring event at 2345 B.C. announced in 1988 in
>Nature by you and Munro, Earth intercepted a major
>cloud of debris in the Taurid stream that wreaked
>havoc on the ground, destroying all advanced
>civilizations and motivating a new generation of
>mythology, while leaving behind a ring around the
>Earth inclined 70 degrees to the equator, that
>dissipated in a short period of time (Mandelkehr does
>not give any specific estimate) but which inspired
>many themes/motifs in mythology (interestingly, many
>that Talbott and the Saturnists try to pile onto their
>"polar configuration!). I think this ring as impetus
>to myth is a super insight. The book assembles an
>impressive survey of all kinds of evidence attesting a
>major global climate event at this epoch and also
>connects it to the Taurid meteor stream, as Clube and
>Napier, and others have done for major Holocene
>"impact" events.
>
>Besides telling you about the book, I would like to
>ask you what, if any, information you have gleaned
>about GRIP/GISP ice core data concerning ammonium in
>the ice at 2345 B.C., which is a datum missing from
>your recent discussions of ammonium in the Greenland
>ice, which have not included this early event.
>
>Mandelkehr's book is available from Amazon.com in
>U.S., U.K. and Canada; just type in Mandelkehr and add
>the three volumes to your cart, if interested!
>
>Cheers, Leroy
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>The books may be found at Amazon
>
>http://www.amazon.com/2300-Event-Archaeology-Geophysics-Meteoroid/dp/1598002775/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204150632&sr=1-3
>http://tinyurl.com/2wcowy
>
> The 2300 BC Event: Vol 1 Archaeology and Geophysics & The
> Meteoroid Stream
>
>http://www.amazon.com/2300-BC-Event-Mythology-Eyewitness/dp/1598002953/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204150632&sr=1-2
>http://tinyurl.com/3cyc65
>
> The 2300 BC Event: Vol II Mythology -The Eyewitness Accounts 1
>
>http://www.amazon.com/2300-BC-Event-Mythology-Eyewitness/dp/159800297X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204150632&sr=1-1
>http://tinyurl.com/38foj2
>
> The 2300 BC Event: Vol III Mythology -The Eyewitness Accounts 2
>
>
>I have ordered the books which will take a while to arrive and be
>read. I will report further once that is done.
The books have arrived and I have read them, and I am totally bemused
about where to start.
Mandelkehr has written a book which has been published in three
volumes totalling more than 899 pages. The book is divided into three
main sections and each section is further divided into chapters. I
have added the table of contents to the end of this article. Each
chapter is heavily referenced with the number of references varying
between as few as 10 and more than 800. Here is where the reviewer's
problem really starts.
Mandelkehr's book clearly is not a primary source and clearly is
several layers back from such. Further, there are few potential
readers who can be familiar with more than a smattering of the fields
Mandelkehr discusses. Irrespective of whether Mandelkehr is right or
wrong the book represents a lifetime of scholarship at which I can
only gape in awe.
The core of Mandelkehr's thesis is not novel. He posits that at about
2300 BC the earth was on the receiving end of a series of cosmic
catastrophes which caused destruction by impact, earthquake, fire,
flood, drought and general climate change. What is novel is that he
has postulated that for a period of time the earth was surrounded by a
ring similar to but smaller than that of Saturn and it was the
appearance of the ring which gave rise to so many theologies based on
sky-gods.
The concept of a ring circling the earth has not been proposed
casually. Mandlelkehr appears to have carried out a study based on the
known properties of cometary debris which shows that it is possible
for such a ring to form and survive for a period of time in orbit
around the earth.
Mandelkehr has based his arguments on a mixture of mythology, history
and archaeology. He has mined scholarly literature for common linkages
between events which have occurred all around the world. and which he
believes are consistent with aspects of the events of c 2300 BC. He
relies on mythology on the basis that in particular areas it encodes
descriptions of events of the time.
The degree of support he gets from this method of analysis varies
considerably. Some aspects of his claims appear to be widely supported
by mythology, history and archaeology from all around the world.
Others are more sparsely supported. I cannot know but I would not be
surprised to find that in some areas he has overdrawn his bow at
particular targets. However, while this may weaken some of his
arguments, in most cases there is likely to be sufficient substance
remaining to leave his argument still standing.
A personal concern is with the dating of the events he has cited as
supporting his claim for a single catastrophic episode at c 2300 BC.
My own view is that known chronologies are not likely to support this.
Evidence seems to support the claim that there were multiple
catastrophic events at about that general time but not that they
occurred in a single mega-cluster. The other side of that coin is
that, as Mike Baillie has pointed out, we would now have no way of
determining that multiple events of that era were simultaneous, even
if they were.
I am sure that many will find much to argue about in his thesis even
if they haven't read the book. My present suspicion is that Mandelkehr
is on to something which warrants further study.
Table of contents:
-----------------------
Volume 1 Archaeology and Geophysics - The Meteoroid Stream
Chapter 1 Prologue Chapter 2 Introduction to the Geophysical and
Archaeological Evidence Chapter 3 Events in the Middle East-Syria,
Palestine, Mesopotamia, Iran and Arabia Chapter 4 Events in Anatolia
and Greece Chapter 5 Events in Egypt Chapter 6 Events in India and
Central Asia Chapter 7 Events in Europe Chapters Events in China and
Japan Chapter 9 Events in the Far East, Australia and New Zealand, and
Islands in the Pacific Ocean Chapter 10 Events on the
African Continent Chapter 11 Events in the Americas Chapter 12 Events
in the Arctic and Antarctic Regions Chapter 13 Events in the Oceans
Chapter 14 The Climatic Changes at 2300 BC and their Causal Source
Chapter 15 The Geological Transients at 2300 BC and their Causal
Source
Chapter 16 The Geomagnetic Transients at 2300 BC and their Causal
Source
Chapter 17 Fire and the Dead - Commemoration of the Event Chapter 18
Identifying the Meteoroid Stream - the Taurids Chapter 19 Mapping the
Heavens - the Star Charts
Volume 2 Mythology - The Eyewitness Accounts 1
Chapter 20 Introduction to the Mythologies Chapter 21 The Dating of
the Mythologies Chapter 22 The Ring Formed Around the Earth Chapter
23 The Stream Surrounding the Earth Chapter 24 The Mountain of the
North Chapter 25 The Encircling Serpent Chapter 26 The Circular
Monuments Chapter 27 The Horns of the Gods Chapter 28 The Chariots
of the Sun Chapter 29 The Measurers of Time Chapter 30 The Watchful
Eyes Chapter 31 Paradise and the Path of the Dead Chapter 32 The
Spinners and Weavers Chapter 33 The Bow Above the Flood
Volume 3 Mythology - The Eyewitness Accounts 2
Chapter 34 The Supports of the Sky Chapter 35 The Light and the
Darkness Chapter 36 The Separation of the Heavens and the Earth
Chapter 37 The Seven-Headed Serpent, the Seven-Branched Stream and
the Seven-Peaked Mountain
Chapter 38 The Celestial Seven-Branched Tree Chapter 39 The Flowing
Hair Chapter 40 The Magicians, Tricksters, and Shape-Shifters Chapter
41 The Cross and the Movement of the Cross in the Sky Chapter 42 The
Double-Axe, the Thunderbolt, and the Sacred Cross Chapter 43 The
Meteoroid Fall and the Flood Chapter 44 The Total Scenario I: The
Conflict with the Serpent Chapter 45 The Total Scenario II: The
Conflict with the Mountain and with the Waters
Chapter 46 The Total Scenario III: The Followers Chapter 47 Epilogue
Index of Mythology
Eric Stevens