 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / July 2008The events of 2300 BC
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. Eric Stevens >... > 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 > On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of subscribers to > sci.archaeolgy to the probability that, in accordance with the [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > 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> ... > Mandelkehr posits that at 2300 B.C., almost certainly > the tree-ring event at 2345 B.C. announced in 1988 in [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 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?  SignatureThe 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 Eric Stevens wrote, on 2008-02-27 17:24: > This book presents a story of a devastation that the Earth > experienced at about 2300 BC. If one was inclined to issue [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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? > On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of subscribers to > sci.archaeolgy to the probability that, in accordance with the [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > 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 >> On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of subscribers to >> sci.archaeolgy to the probability that, in accordance with the [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >history, that from inhumation to cremation burials in the late Bronce Age, >the Urnfield culture? 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 > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 08:21:19 +0100, "Uwe Müller" > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > - Show quoted text - A fair answer by Eric to Uwe. David Christainsen ... > 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? SignatureIf 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 > ... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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> 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. 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. Best Regards, W. Sheppard Baird http://www.minoanatlantis.com >On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, c.le...@rocketmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >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 > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:41:43 -0800 (PST), "W. Sheppard Baird" > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:41:43 -0800 (PST), "W. Sheppard Baird" > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - 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, W. Sheppard Baird http://www.minoanatlantis.com >> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:41:43 -0800 (PST), "W. Sheppard Baird" >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >and concentrations. I'm assuming they are rare earth elements like >iridium, etc. 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 On Mar 4, 3:01 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:41:43 -0800 (PST), "W. Sheppard Baird" > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - 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, W. Sheppard Baird http://www.minoanatlantis.com 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 >On Mar 4, 3:01 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote: >> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:41:43 -0800 (PST), "W. Sheppard Baird" [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >cores and trees, then it's more than likely that 'something' did happen. >Question of what remains to be solved./Inger E See my response to W. Sheppard Baird who has replied to the same post that you have just replied to. Eric Stevens >>On Mar 4, 3:01 am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote: >>> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 16:41:43 -0800 (PST), "W. Sheppard Baird" [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > See my response to W. Sheppard Baird who has replied to the same post > that you have just replied to. 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 On Mar 3, 6:41 pm, "W. Sheppard Baird" <minoanatlan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 3, 4:31 pm, c.le...@rocketmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > http://www.minoanatlantis.com 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> 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. 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. Best Regards, W. Sheppard Baird http://www.minoanatlantis.com Dear Sheppard, 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: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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" <http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/velidelu.html> Previously I promised to provide the information from Baillie concerning the lack of an adequate volcanic signal in the Greenland ice at AD540. This infomration is produced below: On Mar 5, 3:52 pm, c.le...@rocketmail.com wrote: > Dear Sheppard, > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Univ. > in St. Louis. 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] >> ... >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. SignatureSuriving 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 > 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. >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 >>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, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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. have fun Uwe Mueller >>>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, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >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 >>>>Is there any impact explanation for the most noted change in European >>>>pre [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I think that at that distance in time any explanation as to 'why' will > only be a speculation. 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 >>>>>Is there any impact explanation for the most noted change in European >>>>>pre [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >were 3000 years ago? Would geology be only a set of speculations, because >the time frame is much bigger? 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >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-Agnès 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 >>>>>>Is there any impact explanation for the most noted change in European >>>>>>pre [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > years later as to why the change occurred is unlikely to ever be more > than speculation. 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 >>>>>>>Is there any impact explanation for the most noted change in European >>>>>>>pre [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >could be witnessed globally and would thus have to be explained by a global >catastrophe. 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. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >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 [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >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? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >No, the scientific method has been defined, and duplication and >verfication/falsification are its core elements. But absolute knowledge is not. >>>Collecting >>>interesting tidbits about possible catastrophic scenarios may be positive [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >peoples, I was among them. But what are the scientific and verifieable facts >a century later? You are making a mistake if you confuse all this with Velikovsky (velis). Don't worry, I am having fun. Eric Stevens > 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 http://www.minoanatlantis.com >> On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:21:21 +0100, "Uwe Müller" > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >Please Eric, I need some real verifiable scientific evidence on this >and I promise I will take another unbiased look at it. You will have to wait until I have read the book. Eric Stevens > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:28:06 -0800 (PST), "W. Sheppard Baird" > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I can't wait for another installment. David Christainsen On Mar 1, 8:28 pm, "W. Sheppard Baird" <minoanatlan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 14:21:21 +0100, "Uwe Müller" > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (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 > certainly can see no evidence for any sustained cataclysmic cultural > discontinuity in the Aegean or anywhere else in the Mediterranean for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://www.minoanatlantis.com On 3 Mar, 06:55, c.le...@rocketmail.com wrote: > On Mar 1, 8:28 pm, "W. Sheppard Baird" <minoanatlan...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > were initially attributed to climate transients caused by major > eruptions, 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 > > Best Regards, > > > W. Sheppard Baird > > >http://www.minoanatlantis.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 > On 3 Mar, 06:55, c.le...@rocketmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > no such changes, i.e. that the impact oft he impacts on the ecosystem of the > bog was neglible? This may be of interest http://www.mires-and-peat.net/map01/map_1_3.pdf JerryT > It sounds nice, but there are more questions than answers. > > > snip > > > have fun > Uwe Mueller My reading of the report from Lars Franzen in Goteberg, Sweden, in 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 3 Mar, 06:55, c.le...@rocketmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > It sounds nice, but there are more questions than answers. 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 > snip > >>>> What would such an impact explain, if it could be supported by >>>>evidence? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > "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 Uwe Müller wrote: on, 03/03/2008 23:41: > Compare a site, where they are doing the basic research first > http://www.chiemgau-impact.com/ Great site Uwe. Thanks Signaturep.a. >> snip > > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >> snip> See Message-ID: <pj22m252rnmal7sdh8l4mq3hehf7necli1@4ax.com> I am already aware of Chiemgau. Eric Stevens Interestingly enough, the URL below to Chiemgau-impact.com refers 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. > > snip > > >>>> What would such an impact explain, if it could be supported by [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - 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> >On a number of occasions I have drawn the attention of subscribers to >sci.archaeolgy to the probability that, in accordance with the [quoted text clipped - 104 lines] >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 |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog |