A Sumerian Observation of the Kofels' Impact Event: A Monograph [Paperback]

I decided to purchase this book after seeing some of the material presented as part of a history/science program on TV. The information there was impressive enough that I decided to read the book written by two of the guest commentators. Bond and Hempsell's book, A Sumerian Observation of the Köfels' Impact Event, is not a light weight read by any means. In places, it was definitely over my head, but the general concepts were apparent.

First let me say that I do not have nearly the scientific background that the authors do, but I do have a broad background which definitely suits me to evaluating the topic. I don't have a degree in mechanical engineering as does Mr. Bond, nor degrees in physics, astronomy and astronautics as does Mr. Hempsell. I do have a rudimentary understanding of physics and astronomy and a nearly complete degree in geology, with a primary focus in earth history, paleontology, and structural geology (primarily sedimentary formations, since my intention was to pursue paleontology at a graduate level). I also have a masters degree in ancient history for which I took basic course work in both Sumarian and Akkadian, though I do not claim anything like authority and expertise in either. (Frankly I was better at Egyptian hieroglyphics, which I found more interesting at the time.) That given, I will attempt to critique the book for prospective readers.

A Sumerian Observation is not for those who do not have a strong interest in history, particularly ancient Mesopotamian history, and a basic understanding of physics and astronomy. This is primarily because the topic is a complex one, bridging science and social science. One might be able to plow through it without this knowledge, but I'm not sure the average reader would find it either edifying or satisfying. This really is a special interest type of book, which is why it is rather expensive. It attracted me because I have these interests and thought I might gain better insight into what I saw on the TV program. If this doesn't sound like you, you would be better off spending the money on something you might enjoy and understand more.

For those who do have these interests, I think you will find what I did, and what the authors themselves admit from the very beginning, the arguments are very circular. The authors use what they want to prove as part of the argument. They want to show that the Köfels' formation near the village of Köfels' in Austria was an impact crater rather than a slide or volcanic structure, that it occurred in the period from 3500-2000 BC, and that Sumerian disk shaped object K8538 in the British Museum's cuneiform collection, generally referred to as the "Planisphere," depicted this event. They then proceed to adjust the data of all sides until it fit's their proposal. Data which does not agree with the theory is discredited or reread. Their basis for this is generally acceptable research by others, but the research results are by no means consensual among the field's professionals. This doesn't mean that the results are "wrong," only that they have not withstood the scrutiny of time and further study. In fact, the reports the authors use, are just that: "further study" and part of the scientific "scrutiny" in the field.

They also assume that uncertainties can be added to produce defining limits for the value of the actual data, but in general, individual uncertainties tend to be multiplicative rather than additive, which makes the defining limits of the data far less flexible with each added poorly defined detail than the authors suggest. This is what makes meteorology such a difficult science and computer simulations of it difficult to build. Each assumption with its +/- degree of certainty makes the equations more and more insubstantial. In dealing with the data of the planisphere, this is particularly noticeable.

First the document is damaged, sometimes in places where significant data might be located. Despite the attractive and oft quoted statement that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," for a scientific study, it might as well be. You can't make solid statements on what "might" or "should" be there.

Secondly, the document is probably not the original but a copy; in fact, it's very likely a copy of a copy of a copy, etc., which would be typical of cuneiform documents considered important, as Sumerian documents often were by their political descendants in the area. The possibility of the introduction of simple copiest's errors is significant, given that there may have been more than one of them to introduce them over the period of 700 BC to 3100 BC that the author's believe took place between the Sumerian observation and the Assyrian preservation.

Thirdly, as the authors themselves note, the content of the document, if it is actually as old as they believe it to be, was probably originally written in pictographic characters at a very nascent stage of literacy, a very pliable period in the history of the written word. Pictographic signs came to have set meanings only with the expansion of a shared symbol system and literacy over a wide area. Not only that but Sumerian was a language which has unknown parentage; it is not just another one of several Semitic languages from the area. Concepts, precepts and cultural point of view are therefore unique. Furthermore, by the time the Planisphere we possess was made, the Sumerians had ceased to exist over 1200 years earlier, their culture and language long buried. Lexicons were kept by later Semitic speakers specifically for translation of Sumerian documents, but the language of the Sumerians was as foreign to these people as ancient Japanese might be to English speakers. It might be translatable for a specialist in the field, but the possibility of mistranslation from early Sumerian pictograms into Assyrian Akkadian cuneiform was enormous even for such a person. The authors' discussion of the cuneiform signs and the language of the document reveal just that. In some places the redactor of the document was a little confused about the meaning of the Sumerian. Now add the fact that Akkadian is also an ancient and long dead language, which must be translated by experts, and whose concensus on the meaning of the signs is belabored in professional journals still, we add yet another layer for confusion. So the question remains, do we really have and can we really know what the Sumerian astronomer intended at all?

Even the assumption that the bowl shaped object was designed to be an erasable surface easily held in the hand by the observer or his assistant, while probably true, is based on an object that may not be an absolute copy of the original at all, but perhaps a design known to be useful by astronomers of the contemporary redactor of the object and therefore imposed upon the object we possess because it "made sense" and therefore "must have been." In short, just as the authors interpret the object from 700 BC in terms they believe "must have been," so too might a 700 BC translator interpret an earlier document. When you accept that there may have been a number of such translators between the one who provided the author's with their document and the scientist who created the observation, that makes for a lot of interpretative changes that "made sense" to somebody in between them.

These points made, I will say that I agree with the authors' assessment. Not because their argument is "logical," but because I know that the Sumerians were avid celestial observers. Though they were primarily interested in prediction and interpretation and in correlation between events in the sky and those on earth, they were more observational scientists than we often give them credit. They were also capable mathematicians for their time, basing their manipulations on a sexigesimal system. Our 360 degree circle, 60 second minute and 60 minute hour were bequeathed to us by the Sumerians. Part of the purpose of the ziggurat was the observation of the sky, just as they probably were for the pyramid builders of South and Central America. That they might observe an actual celestial event and maintain a record of their findings I find entirely credible. I therefore have no difficulty believing that the original document recorded astronomical data believed significant enough to have been preserved through the ages. Exactly what the event was, where it might have left its mark, is difficult to say for sure, but it is as likely to be Köfels' as any; but again, this is not a scientific observation based on proof, but an opinion.

The concept that the Köfels' site is impact rather than volcanic is not really proved so far as I was able to ascertain from the book. The mention of dykes and sills suggest melting not uncommon in volcanic areas, and certainly the Alps themselves were created by a major and probably ongoing subduction event that has closed the Tethys Sea, leaving the Mediterranean, the Caspian, and the Baltic Seas as residual representatives. Volcanism would not be unexpected here. The authors themselves mention studies that suggest that what has been interpreted as impact evidence might actually be evidence of landslide activity which is very much in evidence in the area. Furthermore, they also mention dates nearly 10,000 years before the present that may place the event, volcanic or other, beyond the desired date of 3123 BC. So now we have an impact event that isn't necessarily real which is "supported" by a document that isn't necessarily in the form its original creator intended.

I think the idea is brilliantly conceived. I think it's not unlikely to be true, because bizarre accidents of fate just do happen, and this one appeals to me. But that's still not solid evidence.

Alan Bond and Mark Hempsell have produced a thorough, scholarly book here which is centred around analysis of the cuneiform tablet K8538 (the "Planisphere") at the British Museum. The tablet seems to be a 700 BC copy of an astronomical clay 'notebook' dating back to the pre-sunrise of 29th June 3,123 BC in Kish (modern Iraq).

Most of the early chapters analyse the Planisphere a sector at a time, decoding the star signs and Sumerian commentary by matching constellations and planets against state-of-the-art programs which can reproduce the night sky from any location and at any time in the last few thousands of years. But it's what happened next which captures the interest. Just before dawn the astronomers see a bright object appearing from behind the clouds, moving faster than anything they have ever seen before. It's big enough to show phases as it traverses the sky from East to West (at this stage it is still exo-atmospheric) before it vanishes into the earth's shadow and then below the Sumerian horizon to the North-West.

Thirty seconds later (p. 71) the object enters the top of the atmosphere over Greece and an ionised shock-front becomes visible as a gigantic arrow head in the pre-dawn darkness. As the object traverses the coast of Albania it is seen as an enormous fireball, larger than the sun.

The asteroid dumps enormous amounts of energy into the atmosphere. As it reaches the southern Alps, it is releasing the equivalent of a one kiloton atomic explosion every metre while the shockwave over-pressure on the ground amounts to several atmospheres.

In its final second of flight, the asteroid gouges a 2 kilometre cut out of the mountain overlooking Austrian Köfels, at the 6 degree gradient of its very shallow trajectory. This glancing blow was sufficient to vaporise the asteroid.

The final 4 kilometre-wide, 850 million tonne fireball hit the mountain at Köfels at 14 km/sec. The energy released was 14,000 Megatons, producing not a crater, but the demolition of the mountain into the gigantic landslide we see today.

The aftermath was an ejecta plume which spread backwards, recapitulating the entry trajectory. This searingly hot mass would have launched into space, achieving a height of 900 km over the Mediterranean, and re-entering over northern Egypt and Syria. The astronomers of Kish saw the plume like a gigantic tree, low on the horizon, a few minutes after their strange star had vanished.

As it re-entered, the plume dumped 500 Megatons of energy into the atmosphere (= four simultaneous detonations of the largest H-bombs ever tested). This would have incinerated anyone beneath it. It also seems likely there were major climate changes post-impact.

Bond and Hempsell tell a thorough story although inevitably there is always a great deal of interpretation with such ancient and fragmentary material. But as they observe, it all seems to hang together.

(Four stars because you have to be interested in cuneiform decoding to get the most out of this monograph. The physics of asteroid entry and impact are very much in second place).

There are 8 sectors in this pie-shaped cuneiform inscription. Bond and Hempsell do a wonderful job deciphering it, much better than any other author.... devoting a chaptor for each sector.

For an alternate observation from that of the authors of this book, please goto:

http://infinitybiblecode.zoomshare.com/files/An_Assyrian_Planisphere_dating_the_flood.htm

1. I suggest, that this copy of the inscription of the k8538 Assyrian Planisphere was originally produced by Noah or his son Shem. Noah's grandson, Asshur then carried it to Ninevah where it was found in the Royal Library by the famous Sir Henry Austin Layard in the 1800's.

Gen 10:11 Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh...

2. The Planisphere shows the path the meteors took through the heavens including Sagitta (the arrow, i.e. the meteors are arrows) and the Bull's eye (the star Aldebaran in Taurus the Bull) which the 'arrow' (meteor) hit. And now you know why a target has a 'bull's eye' in it. The authors suggest that the triangle stick figure in one of the sectors refers to Aquila. I show that this is not the case. My website shows it is Ophiuchus, however, I've since changed my mind and reckon the triangle is formed by 3 of the 4 famous stars in the Pegasus square. Pegasus is right next to Pieces, and on the planisphere, Pisces is identified as a 'V' shape next to the triangle we are discussing.

3. The Planisphere contains an earth-to-sky map showing Damascus, Asshur, and the Mountains of Ararat (where the Ark of Noah rests).

4. The Planisphere gives enough information to date the year of the flood to July 4, 2361bc. This date matches closely with conventional BIble Chronology.

5. The Planisphere describes the lights (stars, planets, meteors) in the celestial sky on a certain day that meteors hit the earth.

The planisphere refers to:
(1). 3 or 4 planets in 2 or 3 constellations.
(2). the path of the sun through certain constellations (the path of the sun changes slowly over time).
(3). the day of the month after the new moon
(4). the length of the night
(5). the location of 2 of these planets in the eastern sky just before sunrise.

6. That it shows several meteors is important, for it suggests that many or perhaps most of the meteor craters on the earth could have occurred at this same time...... not millions of years between.

7. The authors of the book listed July 4, 2361bc as one of the top options for matching the evidence. The author's instead, selected June 29, 3123bc. The authors based much of their opinion on the position of the path of the sun, planets, and celestial equator on Pisces. This is problematic because it is obvious that pisces was really not visible. First becasue the planisphere indicates 'clouds' were in the way of Piscies, while the triangle was under 'clear sky'. Pisces is the only stick figure which did not have 'dots' on it. The dots indicate the stars in the constellation.... which indicates the Assyrian observer could not see the stars in Pisces.

8. I think the authors failed to recognize the planet Mars in the Gemini constellation..... and this means their preferred date o f3123bc is wrong.

Both fixed stars and wandering stars (planets) appear on the planisphere as either dots or small triangles. Bond and Hempsell, in their book, give evidence that planets are shown in Cancer, Gemini, and Taurus. With the exception of the planet in Gemini, none of the planets are identified by names. The planet in Gemini is identified by the phrase which perhaps can be translated as 'one who does not shy' and Bond and Hempsell argue that this may refer to Saturn. Their evidence, however, is not very convincing. Further, consider the complete phrase found in the Gemini sector of the planisphere, to wit:

"Constellation of the young twins (Gemini) hosts the one who does not shy"

Constellations are known as 'houses', hence the word 'hosts' implies that the planet would be inside of the stick Gemini figure engraved on the Gemini sector. There is a 'dot' inside Gemini on the planisphere. The problem for Bond and Hempsell is, that using planetary computer software, on June 29,3123bc (their preferred date), Saturn is not inside of the Gemini stick figure, but outside of it. On the other hand, on July 4, 2361bc, my preferred date, Mars is within this Gemini Stick Figure!!! Mars is from ancient times considered the War planet, so the label 'one who does not shy' could just as easily apply to it.

9. The stick figure of Gemini, on the Planisphere, does not overlay directly on todays Gemini Constellation. There was a purpose for this. The Assyrian observer wanted to link the modified Gemini configuration with a particular star in Taurus, namely the very bright and famous Aldebaran. By drawing the stick figure as it was, a long line could thus be extended from Gemini to the center of the planisphere ending in a triangle (arrowhead). Bond and Hempsell failed to notice, that the end of the line with the arrowhead triangle matches up with Aldebaran, rather, they state, that this arrowhead might refer to a planet in Taurus; but it is plain that this line does not intersect the "path of the planets (the Ecliptic)". Rather, it points to Aldebaran (the Bull's eye), for it is here that the meteors passed.

10. Some of the stars in this planispherian version of Gemini are now so dim that they cannot be seen by the naked eye. These stars could have dimmed in the last 4 millenia. Or there could be another reason for it, namely, that there was a ring of water rotating around the earth in low earth orbit acting like a 10x telescope. When the Meteors crashed thru this ring of water, the rotation stopped, and the water poured out at that one spot providing the water for the 40 days of rain. And so it is, at that if we draw a line from Sagitta down to Aldebaron, and slightly beyond, we come to the ancient assyrian constellation called the 'sea channel of heaven', which said constellation is written, in cuneiform, on the planishere. It is here, that the heavenly water poured thru this meteor-created channel.