You wrote: Cosmic events don't dump tephra in a localized region. Indeed,
dump tephra at all. Tephra is a volcanic ash and has little to do with
meteors or cosmic phenomenon.
I'm no geologist. But the person whose article I quoted from is. Do you have
any idea what may have created the "layer with an uncommon petrographic
assemblage, dated at ca. 2350 BC" to which she refers?
Courty says, "It consists of fine send-sized, well sorted spherules of
various composition (silica, silicates and fibro-radiated calcite),
millimetric fragments of a black, vesicular, amorphous material made of
silicates with Mg-Ca carbonate and phosphate inclusions, ovoid
micro-aggregates made of densely packed crystals (calcite, gypsum or
feldspars) and exogenous angular fragments of a coarse crystallised igneous
rock. All these particles are only present in this specific layer and are
finely mixed with mud-brick debris or with a burnt surface horizon in the
contemporaneous soils. In occupation sequences, the layer displays an
uncommon dense packing of sand-sized, very porous aggregates that suggests
disintegration of the mud-brick construction by an air blast. In the virgin
soil, the burnt horizon contains black soot and graphite, and appears to have
been instantaneously fossilised by a rapid and uncommon colluvial wash."
She says that, "the mysterious layer confirms that the later is
contemporaneous with the tephra deposit." And she says that, "The restricted
occurrence of the later [mysterious layer] suggests that the massive tephra
accumulation can no longer be considered as a typical fallout derived from
the dispersion of material from a terrestrial volcanic explosion."
If this layer is nothing more than volcanic ash as you seem to say, why does
she say that, "Analytical investigations in various directions have been
unable, so far, to refute ... that a cosmic event would have been the cause
for production of both the widely distributed mysterious particles and the
localised thick tephra."? If this layer is nothing more than volcanic ash as
you seem to believe, why does she say that, the "origin of this mysterious
phenomena still remains unsolved."?
If this layer is nothing more than volcanic ash as you seem to suggest, why
does she say, "Soil specialists, geochemists and archaeologists should join
their effort to solve this problem, and debate the exact nature of the socio
cultural echo to this extraordinary event"?
Of course, it was the 2350 BC date that caught my attention. The same date
both the recent tree ring studies and Bible chronology suggests for Noah's
flood. Not to mention that as yet undated crater-like formation in southern
Iraq, which some say appears to have been caused by a meteor impact at about
the same time. With such things in mind, it certainly seems to me that we now
have good reason to believe that Noah's flood may have been caused by some
"mysterious phenomena," to use Courtny's words, in about 2350 BC.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 15 2002 - 23:10:24 EDT