(meteorobs) Crater Köfels, Otzthal and the Sumerians

[Paul]

--- In meteorobs at yahoogroups.com, "Roberto G." <md6648 at ...> wrote:
>
> Yesterday I read an article on an Italian newpaper and 
> now I found this
> site in English
> 
> http://www.physorg.com/news126183668.html
> 
> What do you think of this? Many years ago I saw the
> crater and I found impactites
> 
>
http://www.newarkcampus.org/professional/osu/faculty/jstjohn/Outer%20Space%20Rocks/Kofelsite.htm
> 
> and too a glass that as I known it's the only sample 
> never found near Otzthal, Austria,  there is in Italy, 
> the Val Camonica, that from 8,000 B.C. until 100 B.C. 
> was the house of the Camuni civilisation that design 
> more of 100,000 grafiti, some with astronomical simbol, 
> and in one I saw the possible impact, some years ago
> I wrote to a specialist in astronomical archeology but 
> I never known what was the end of my hypothesis, perharps 
> between all you it can to be peoples that can to be 
> interested to search in this topic, I not have data but 
> a professional should not have problem find they.
> Best greetings.

Cuneiform clay tablet translated for the first time, by 
Joanne Fryer University of Bristol , March 31, 2008, 

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-03/uob-cct033108.php

The press release by Joanne Fryer, stated

"The giant landslide centred at Köfels in Austria is 
500m thick and five kilometres in diameter and has 
long been a mystery since geologists first looked 
at it in the 19th century. The conclusion drawn by 
research in the middle 20th century was that it 
must be due to a very large meteor impact because 
of the evidence of crushing pressures and 
explosions.."

The Korfels landslide was argued to have been caused by a 
meteorite impact because published abstracts reported the 
presence of shocked quartz and "pumice", which was presumed
to be a primary impact melt. 

The impacts and meteorites web page of of Jarmo Moilanen at 
http://www.somerikko.net/old/geo/imp/refer.htm stated:

"Age between 8000 and 16000 years is from glass.
Theory has been recently presented that köfels has been
formed during a giant landslide about 9000 years ago.
That landslide was so huge that rock melted because
friction. So there is still a possibility that Köfels is 
not an impact structure. However, there is lots of big
landslides in Alps but no other similar cases is found
yet. Also PDF's in quartz has been reported in samples
from Köfels, and PDF's are produced only by impacts."

The origin of the pumice, called either "hyalomylonites" or
"frictionites" associated with the Köfels has been studied
in great detail by:

Erismann, T. H., 1977, Der bimsstein von Köfels impaktit 
oder friktionit?. Material und Technik. vol. 5, pp. 190–196.

and Erismann, T. H., H. Heuberger, and E. Preuss, 1977, 
Der Bimsstein von Köfels (Tirol), ein Bergsturz-"Friktionit.
Mineralogy and Petrology. vol. 24, no. 1-2, pp. 67-119.

The abstract to Erismann et al. (1977) in part stated:

"By setting up plausible models for movement,
heat generation, and heat transfer and by solving the
resulting differential equations it became evident that —
as far as the landslide masses did not glide on a very
thick layer of stone powder (dynamically a rather
unprobable supposition)-large amounts of fused rock
(ldquofrictioniterdquo, for definition see chapter 2.2) 
must have been produced. The enormous size of the 
particular landslide was recognized as a determining 
factor in this connection. The theoretical results thus 
obtained could be backed experimentally by producting 
artificial pumice under conditions approaching those of 
the Köfels landslide."

Erismann et al. (1977) fairly well demonstrates that the 
estimated kinetic energy of the rock mass displaced by the 
landslide would have generated the heat necessary to melt 
the rock and form the "pumice", which they called 
"frictionite". The frictionite occurs in dikes several 
decimeters to meter thick at the top of the landslide 
deposit.

The Köfels landslide, about 2 to 3 cubic kilometers in mass, 
is the **largest** landslide in Europe. It is not surprising 
that it has some unique aspects to it being the only one of 
its size.

Another study, which examined glass found in the Köfels 
landslide, is:

Masch, L., H. R. Wenk, and E. Preuss, 1985. Electron 
microscopy study of hyalomylonites-evidence for frictional 
melting in landslides. Tectonophysics. vol. 115, pp. 131–160.

They studied glass, which they called "hyalomylonite", which 
occurs in the Köfels landslide deposits. It differs from 
frictionite in that it occurs as veins 1 mm to 3 cm thick 
and lacks porosity. from their analysis, they concluded that 
the hyalomylonite was created by kinetic heating of the rock 
during the landslide.

Similar hyalomylonite / frictionite deposits has also been 
found in megalandslides in the Himalayas of Nepal and Peru 
as discussed by:

Heuberger, H., L. Masch, E. Preuss, and A. Schrocker, 1984,
Quaternary Landslides and Rock Fusion in Central Nepal and 
in the Tyrolean Alps. Mountain Research and Developments. 
vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 345-362.

Weidinger, J. T., J.-M. Schramm, and R. Surenian, 1996, On 
preparatory causal factors, initiating the prehistoric 
Tsergo Ri landslide (Langthang Himal, Nepal). Tectonophysics. 
vol. 260, no. 1-3, pp. 95-107.

and

Legros, F., J.-M. Cantagrel, and B. Devouard, 2000, 
Pseudotachylyte (Frictionite) at the Base of the Arequipa 
Volcanic Landslide Deposit (Peru): Implications for 
Emplacement Mechanisms. The Journal of Geology. vol. 108, 
no. 5, pp. 601–611.

Hermanns et al. (2006) presents significant problem for 
the impact hypothesis in that he found that there is evidence 
of multiple landslides. It was the largest and youngest of 
these landslides that created the frictionite when it slid 
over the older deposits. To explain multiple periods of 
landsliding, a person would have to argue that two different 
impacts occurred at virtually same spot at different times 
separated by a significant period of time.

Sorenson et al. (2003) concluded:

"Analysis of the Köfels sturzstrom seems to indicate
that most aspects can be explained without recourse to
exotic emplacement scenarios. The bulk of the material
resembles the debris from an energetic but conventional
landslide."

References Cited:

Hermanns, R.., L. Blikra, M. Naumann, B. Nilsen, K. Panthi, 
D. Stromeyer, O. Longva, 2006, Examples of multiple rock-
slope collapses from Köfels (Ötz valley, Austria) and 
western Norway. Engineering Geology. vol. 83, no. 1-3, 
pp. 94-108.

Sorensen, S.-A., and Berthold Bauer, 2003, On the dynamics 
of the Köfels sturzstrom. Geomorphology, vol. 54, no. 1-2, 
pp. 11-19.

There is an extensive discussion of the Köfels landslide 
and the formation of frictionite / pseudotachylyte / 
hyalomylonite in:

Erismann, Theodor H., and Gerhard Abele, 2001, Dynamics 
of Rockslides and Rockfalls, Springer-Verlag, New York. 

and

Bruckl, E. P., 2004, Cause-Effect Models of Large 
Landslides. Natural Hazards. vol. 23, no. 2-3, 
pp. 291-314.

-- Alledged PDFs --

Impacts and meteorites by Jarmo Moilanen and at
http://www.somerikko.net/old/geo/imp/refer.htm#k states

"Also PDF's in quartz has been reported in samples
from Köfels, and PDF's are produced only by impacts."

The alleged PDFs found in the deposits of the Köfels 
landslide were examined by Dr. Christian Koeberl 
according to:

Deutsch, A., C. Koeberl, J.D. Blum, B.M. French, B.P. 
Glass, R. Grieve, P. Horn, E.K. Jessberger, G. Kurat, 
W.U. Reimold, J. Smit, D. stoffler, and S.R. Taylor, 
1994, The impact-flood connection: Does it exist? Terra 
Nova. vol. 6, pp. 644-650.

This paper reports that Dr. Koeberl found them **not** 
to be PDFs. Rather, he identified them to be nonPDF 
llamellar deformation features typical of tectonic, 
not impact, processes.

How these llamellar features would have formed is 
discussed by:

Leroux, H., and J.-C. Doukhan, 1993, Dynamic deformation 
of quartz in the landslide of Koefels, Austria. European 
Journal of Mineralogy. vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 893-902.

--- Timing of Köfels Landslide --

There is one major problem, as stated by Hermanns et al. 
(2006):

"Pieces of wood recovered from a reconnaissance gallery
in the Tauferberg gave a conventional 14C age of 8710+/-150
years BP (Heuberger, 1966), and an AMS 14C age of 8705+/-
55 years BP (Ivy-Ochs et al., 1998),..."

Essentially, the landslide / alleged impact happened about 
8700 BP C14. Thus, the Köfels landslide predates 'Otzi' by 
about 5400 years C14. If a person presume that the 700 BC 
date is calender years, the transformation of years C14 
to calender years gives a calibrated date of 9683 ± 90 BP 
(about 9700 BP) for the Köfels landslide. Thus, in calender 
years, the landslide happened about 7,000 years before the 
cuneiform clay tablet was made and about 4,600 years before 
3123 BC (5123 BP) when it is argued that the impact occurred. 
The Köfels landslide occurred thousand of years before 
either the tablet was argued to have been made or the when 
the alleged impact was suppose to have occurred. The Köfels 
landslide is much too old to have any connection with either 
of them. 

The authors of "A Sumerian observation of the Kofels impact
event" dismiss the radiocarbon dates by claiming that the 
wood samples were somehow magically "contaminated" by the 
impact. I say "magically", because there is not a practical 
way that an impact, especially an imaginary one, could have 
contaminated the dated wood samples buried by the landslide.

The radiocarbon dates are supported and the claims of
"contamination" are refuted by cosmogenic isotope dating, 
which would be unaffected by an impact. Cosmogenic isotope 
dating by Ivy-Ochs et al. (1998) that yielded dates of 
8880+/-490, 10,070+/-520, and 10,630+/-570 calendar years 
BP. These dates are very close to the calibrated radiocarbon 
date of about 9,700 BP.Thus, they confirm that the Köfels 
landslide occurred thousand of years before either the 
Sumerian tablet was argued to have been made, or the when 
the so-called "impact" was suppose to have occurred. The 
Köfels landslide is much too old to have any connection 
with either of them.

References Cited:

Hermanns, R., L. Blikra, M. Naumann, B. Nilsen, K. Panthi, 
D. Stromeyer, and O. Longva, 2006, Examples of multiple 
rock-slope collapses from Köfels (Ötz valley, Austria) 
and western Norway. Engineering Geology. vol. 83, no. 1-3, 
pp. 94-108.

Heuberger, H., 1966, Gletschergeschichtliche Untersuchungen 
in den Zentralalpen zwischen Sellrain-und Otztal. 
Wissenschaftliche Alpenvereinshefte. no. 20.

Ivy-Ochs, S., H. Heuberger, P. W. Kubik, H. Kerschner, 
G. Bonani, M. Frank, and C. Schluchter, 1998, The age of 
the Köfels event. Relative, 14C and cosmogenic isotope 
dating of an early Holocene landslide in the central 
Alps (Tyrol, Austria). Zeitschrift fur Gletscherkunde 
und Glazialgeologie. vol. 34, pp. 57–70.

The calibration of radiocarbon years was done using 
"CalPal Online" at http://www.calpal-online.de/

Cosmogenic isotope dating of a Sioux Quartzite erosion 
surface,Southwestern Minnesota by Carrie Patterson, MGS 
at http://www.geo.umn.edu/mgs/beryl10/SiouxIntro.html

Cosmogenic Exposure Dating and the Age of the Earth at
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/tcn.htm

--- "Earth Impact Effects Program" --

The "Earth Impact Effects Program" by Robert Marcus, H. 
Jay Melosh, and Gareth Collins at
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
reveals numerous probleme with the "Köfels impact event".

Using the below variables, a person can simulate the "Köfels 
impact event" at http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/.

1. Projectile diameter = 1 km or 1,000 m
2. Projectile Density = 3,000 kg/m3 for (stony) asteroid and 
    8,000 kg/m3 for iron asteroid
3. Impact Velocity = 17 km/s (typical velocity for meteorites 
    and asteroids)
4. impact angle = 6 degrees
5. Target type = "Crystalline Rock"
6. Distance from Impact = 1,800 miles, the approximate 
   distance from central Israel to Köfels, Austria.

Using those variables, a person quickly finds that:

1. a hypothetical "Köfels impact event" was too small 
to either create a fireball, for a stony asteroid (3000kg/m3), 
or the Middle East lay below the Earth's horizon for the 
fireball created by an iron asteroid (8000 kg/m3). 

2. a hypothetical was too small to either dump any ejecta, 
for a stony asteroid (3000kg/m3) in the Middle East, or, 
in case of an iron asteroid (8000 kg/m3) the ejecta blanket 
was far too thin to have done any damage.

3. the "plume" / fireball created by such an impact 
would have radiated thermal radiation for only a few 
seconds to few minutes. Therefore, the "plume" could not 
have ignited anything as it drifted over the Middle East.

4. the total kinetic energy that would have been released 
by the impact of the alleged asteroid would have obliterated 
Mt. Gamskogel if any significant piece of the, by then broken 
up, asteroid crashed into this mountain.

The documentation behind the "Earth Impact Effects Program"
can be found at:

Collins, G. S., H. J. Melosh, and R. A. Marcus, 2005, Earth 
Impact Effects Program: A Web-based computer program 
for calculating the regional environmental consequences of a 
meteoroid impact on Earth. Meteoritics & Planetary Science. 
vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 817–840 at:

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~marcus/CollinsEtAl2005.pdf

Yours,

Paul