Archaeologica.org

Maybe I can help put these ancient impacts in perspective if I point out the effects of the most recent powerful meteorite impact. Samples did make it to the surface of the Earth, thousands of fragments of the boldide landed in fact, the largest was found at the bottom of a lake. Each fragment forms a fusion crust during the melt phase of the flight through the Earth's atmosphere,and hence each is a distinct individual meteorite, although all specimens were part of a single incoming meteoroid(called meteorites only after they reach the ground). This was the 2013 Chelyabinsk meteorite event, occurring in the atmosphere above the Russian city of the same name.

Most of the incoming object vaporized about 40 km high in the atmosphere. The resultant shock wave injured more then 1000 people, most from shattering glass. If it had exploded a number of km. lower in the atmosphere, it is estimated over 1 million people would have been killed. And this thing was a tiny pebble compared to the hypothetical YD impactor, and a mote of dust compared to the KT boundary impactor hypothesised to have killed off the dinosaurs. It was the largest such event since the mystery object that vaporized above Tunguska, Siberia in 1908, which completely flattened thousands of square miles of forest. The relative small size of these events in the modern era gives perspective to the havoc that we can speculate might have occurred given the larger size of the YD impactor.

Check out this compilation video from the Chelyabinsk event, including doors being blown inward, etc.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpa0SmI4qmI

Shockwave compilation:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tq02C_3FvFo

News accounts of the event:

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/ ... tains.html

Science reveals the full power of this event:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... eor-russia

And from Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor

Impact events are relevant to Archaeology if it can be demonstrated they occurred in the distant past, and left a record of their occurance, and if we can surmise at least that they have to have affected humans. And if we can get a good idea of their size, and then compare that to what we can actually see as effects on humans through videos and documentation of events like Chelyabinsk in our own lifetimes, we can safely assume these events must have impacted the humans of what would be the Clovis era in North America. Chelyabinsk was only about 20 meters in diameter when it entered Earth's atmosphere. So, just trying to provide some perspective when contemplating truly massive incoming impactors in the distant human past.

circumspice wrote:@shawomet: Thanks for all the links!

Your most welcome, circumspice!

shawomet wrote:

Minimalist wrote:I would like to see a peer reviewed paper on these alleged Holocene Start Impacts.

And then I would like to see a review of that paper!

This is just a summary of such a paper, so you would need to reference the original article. This may have already been posted to archaeologica.org, I'm not certain. At any rate, you can dig deeper from here. This is just the most recent study in favor of the impact hypothesis.

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-discovery ... eople.html

Well, actually, the phys.org article did provide a link to the original paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44031

And supplementary information:

https://www.nature.com/article-assets/n ... 031-s1.pdf

I guess I was not clear enough. I have searched a number of times for the phrase "Holocene Start Impacts" and the replies usually come back to some website that E.P. is deeply involved with.

Minimalist wrote: I guess I was not clear enough. I have searched a number of times for the phrase "Holocene Start Impacts" and the replies usually come back to some website that E.P. is deeply involved with.

hi min -

If you watch this video, you'll find that there were 2. and let me emphasize that again, 2 distinct impact events at the start of the Holocene,
and further that the "Younger Dryas" is so poorly defined as to be worthless in discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbM4vHc ... Ofte_O_Rhp

Now that you yourself are not personally a part of these discussions, well, I don't issue the invitations.

Hi spice -

circumspice wrote:@E.P.

I'm curious... Why have you chosen this forum as a repository for your research?

Why haven't you started your own forum & posted that vast amount of data there?

Wouldn't it make more sense to post on a forum dedicated to impacts?

Wouldn't a forum dedicated exclusively to impacts attract like minded researchers & establish a public dialog?

This is an archaeological forum, your research is only tangentially related to the subject of archaeology...

no need to yell. I'll have to disagree with you as to the importance of "recent" impact events.
These recent impacts explain many of archaeology's mysteries.

If I could run my own bbs for impact researchers, I would.
Given the deadly threat still presented by the impact hazard,
it is important to share notes publicly with the general public,
and to leave a public trail of work done.

Hi tiompan -

I think we will not have really firm dates for Gobekli Tepe until nearby pristine geological cores are drilled,
their phytolith sequences mapped, and radio carbon measurements made in them.

For the time being, I will also note that whatever their faults (and I'll agree with you that they are numerous)
at least both Collins and Hancock understand that major impacts occurred at the start of the Holocene,
a very key fact which you appear unable to handle,
whether for emotional reasons or the cognitive dissonance it causes you.
Given the now overwhelming (for most people) nature of the hard physical evidence for these,
and the very deadly that the impact hazard presents,
I have yet to read you state anywhere that they occurred.

[quote="E.P. Grondine"
I think we will not have really firm dates for Gobekli Tepe until nearby pristine geological cores are drilled,
their phytolith sequences mapped, and radio carbon measurements made in them.[/quote]

I think your understanding of the radio carbon dating of ancient monuments is at about the same level as your understanding of genetics or astronomy .
Geological cores will tell you nothing about the date when the monument was built . Do you have any idea at all about phytoliths and the problems related to radio carbon dating them ?
Btw that was rhetorical question .

"I have yet to read you state anywhere that they occurred."

Why does it have take so many repeats of quite simple comments before they sink in ?
For the umpteenth time ."Read what I have said about these events and if you can find anything that is in error provide the quote ."

E.P.

That's YOUR video. You are a lone voice shouting that an impact event started the Holocene. Why is it that no one else is persuaded?

Tiompan wrote:

E.P. Grondine wrote: I think we will not have really firm dates for Gobekli Tepe until nearby pristine geological cores are drilled,
their phytolith sequences mapped, and radio carbon measurements made in them.

I think your understanding of the radio carbon dating of ancient monuments is at about the same level as your understanding of genetics or astronomy .
Geological cores will tell you nothing about the date when the monument was built . Do you have any idea at all about phytoliths and the problems related to radio carbon dating them ?

By the way, that was rhetorical question .

"I have yet to read you state anywhere that they occurred."

Why does it have take so many repeats of quite simple comments before they sink in ?
For the umpteenth time."Read what I have said about these events and if you can find anything that is in error provide the quote ."

tiompan, when it comes to errors there is an issue of degree of the error.
Collins and Hancock have made theirs, and you have just made yours very explicit.

The very hard data shows clearly that fast neutrons and thus carbon 14 are produced in large hyper velocity impacts.
Yes, I myself am not a nuclear chemist, but depend upon others for that.
The X mt DNA distribution is what it is. Again, that work is done by others.
But that work can be checked against known archaeological remains, an has to agree with their data.
For the archaeo astronomy, for the umptenth time, I depend on an expert, Fletcher Wilson.
I am not a geologist, nor a paleo climatologist either.

Yes, I know that drilling pristine cores and finding radio carbon datable materials within them is very, very difficult.
But don't hand me RC dates that are less than extremely finely calibrated for this period
and then insist they are absolute,
when I am well aware of the calibration difficulties.

I first heard Edward Teller speaking about the impact hazard in 1984 or so,
and simply dismissed his warnings as those of a nuclear physicist looking for work.
I myself did not realize how bad the impact hazard is until 1997,
some 13 years later.
Thus I can understand your reluctance to deal with these facts,
even though the impact hazard is much better documented now than it was then.
As I myself have been there and done that,
I will gladly grant you several years to catch up.
After all, you do have more than some expertise with PPN B.

Minimalist wrote:E.P.

That's YOUR video. You are a lone voice shouting that an impact event started the Holocene. Why is it that no one else is persuaded?

min, there is a normal glacial cycle.
These impact events just happened to occur during the start of the Holocene.
Determining the exact effects of these impacts on the normal glacial cycle is the work of others

As far as others being persuaded,
it depends upon who you talk with.

My video uses data recovered by other specialists,
and the data is what it is.

EP ,
Yet again you fail to supply a quote that would highlight any error explicit or otherwise .
When you make one of your frequent errors I quote it , then refute it .
Are you now suggesting that your misunderstandings about archaeoastromomy or astronomy were not actually yours , but came from elsewhere ?

Tiompan wrote: EP , yet again you fail to supply a quote that would highlight any error explicit or otherwise .
When you make one of your frequent errors I quote it, then refute it .
Are you now suggesting that your misunderstandings about archaeoastromomy or astronomy were not actually yours , but came from elsewhere ?

Yes, tiompan.
Do not mistake me for anyone other than myself,
and please do not claim that I endorse either Collins nor Hancock's numerous works in their entirety.
Please do not try to smear my own work by guilt by association.
Could we please keep this discussion civil?

And please do not claim that I endorse your views in their entirety either.

As I've told you before, I'll ask Fletcher to take a look,
but we already have a lot of work to do with both Native American astronomies, and with sites,
including possible "wood henge" structures.

I have no idea what he'll notice, if we spend any time with Gobekli Tepe.
You'll simply have to wait.

EP ,
I am not"smearing " your work by association .
As I keep telling you , when you make an error I quote it then show where you went wrong .
Here is a an obvious example .

E.P. Grondine wrote:If you bothers to notice, the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer.

You thought you knew about comets but if we look at that short sentence ,it’s garbage . 1) you get the name wrong ,it’s Zinner not Zimmer . 2) The putative alignments are to the North , and that is not where the comet can be observed . 3) The comet was only discovered in 1900 and cannot be seen with the naked eye, so not only was the “alignment “in the wrong direction it wouldn’t have been seen . 4) You don’t get “alignments “ to comets in prehistoric buildings . 5) You confused a comet with meteors , the Draconids are spawned from the comet but are seen in the north not the south . That is an example of data refuting a genuine quote , something you attempt to do but fail to provide the data or the quote .

Boy, does this Nova episode ever bring it home. Just how huge the Chelyabinsk event really was. Aired 5/24/17, and a great documentary on that once in a century event. The shock wave circled the planet for 24 hours. In effect, the Earth rang for 24 hours, and this asteroid was only about 65 feet in diameter. A mini-Tunguska event. Only the shallow angle of entry prevented this from being truly catastrophic for the humans in its path.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/meteor-strike.html

You'll have to excuse me if my links and comments were immaterial to E.P.'s thesis. I just assumed(yes, I know to assume is to make an "ass" of "u" and "me") ya'll were talking about the hypothetical impact at the start of the Younger Dryas.