So far, shatter cones have never been found in the crater strewn field of the Chiemgau impact as a positive impact evidence, which we explained by the predominant uncemented loose sediments of the impact target. In this regard, a change of thinking is necessary since only recently clear shatter cone structures were detected in a rock sample from the Lake Tüttensee ring wall (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Shatter cones with counter orientation from the Lake Tüttensee crater.We are seeing a double cone of counter orientation weathered from a fine-grained sandstone along the fracture surfaces where the frustrums are preserved (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. The graphically completed frustrums of the counter shatter cones. – The circular conic section of the larger cone.

A shatter cone from the Crooked Creek meteorite crater in Missouri, USA, allows a fine comparison (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. The Lake Tüttensee shatter cones in comparison with a shatter cone in dolomite from the Crooked Creek meteorite crater, Missouri, USA. 

Although weathered, the typical horsetail fracture markings of the Lake Tüttensee shatter cones can still be recognized. A confusion with other structures (cone-in-cone structures, lancet fracture markings, ventifacts, etc.) often seen with inexperienced observers and mistakenly shown even in the internet, can be excluded.

Because of the find in the area of the impact ejecta of the Lake Tüttensee ring wall we have to assume that the shatter cones formed near the central impact point where the necessary shock pressures (roughly 2 – 20 GPa) were obtained, before they were excavated and ejected as rock fragment. We are unable to reconstruct the shape of the original rock. Possibly it was a big moraine erratic block or a larger sandstone component as part of a thick Nagelfluh (= strongly cemented conglomerate) plate. Large sharp-edged rock fragments are still today found on the Lake Tüttensee bank. It is unknown, however not to be excluded entirely, whether shatter cones can form also in individual cobbles. There is still much open with regard to the process of shatter cone formation. For example, till this day it is unresolved why in the mixed target of the Ries impact structure clear shatter cones are only known from crystalline rocks but have never been found in optimally suited Malmian limestones although pressure conditions must have been fully adequate.

As for the Ries crater shatter cones we note that they are not only found in crystalline rocks exposed within the crater (e.g., in the abandoned Wengenhausen quarry) but can be sampled also as nice specimens from the Bunte breccia ejecta. These are the same conditions as obviously fulfilled at Lake Tüttensee: The shatter cones develop in the very beginning of the cratering process on passage of the shock wave and are then ejected with the shocked rock.

The combination of counter cones with the Lake Tüttensee shatter cones is remarkable. In general and statistically verified, the cone apices more or less point towards the source of the shock deformation. However, strongly varying orientations are observed, and frequently – as in the Lake Tüttensee case – reverse cones occur. This can be explained physically (David 1977) not further considered here. In the case of the Crooked Creek shatter cones (Fig. 3) reverse cones are relatively abundant, and in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 examples from the Steinheim and Kentland impact craters are shown.

Fig. 4. Reverse shatter cones as negative and positive in Malmian limestone. Steinheim Basin impact structure, Germany.

Fig. 5. Two shatter cones exhibiting counter orientation. Kentland impact structure (Indiana, USA).

Summarizing we conclude: The original opinion that the dominating loose sediments of the Chiemgau impact target have prevented shatter cone formation can obviously no longer be maintained. Therefore, it may be promising to look for more respective pieces of evidence, which requires memorization of the most important features of these very peculiar fracture markings. The probably most comprehensive information about shatter cones may be clicked here:

http://www.impact-structures.com/impact-rocks-impactites/the-shatter-cone-page/

Neumair, A. & Ernstson, K. (2011), Geomagnetic and morphological signature of small crateriform structures in the Alpine Foreland, Southeast Germany, Abstract GP11A-1023 presented at 2011 Fall Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, Calif., 5-9 Dec.

The poster may be clicked here: Poster Neumair & Ernstson

Ernstson, K. & Neumair, A. (2011), Geoelectric Complex Resistivity Measurements of Soil Liquefaction Features in Quaternary Sediments of the Alpine Foreland, Germany, Abstract NS23A-1555 presented at 2011 Fall Meeting, AGU, San Francisco, Calif., 5-9 Dec.

The poster may be clicked here:  Poster Ernstson & Neumair

Fig. 1. A limestone cobble (14 cm long) exhibiting the typical open spallation tensile fractures. The process is nicely documented by the observation that the running fractures have come to standstill midway through the cobble. In case they had continued running, the cobble would have been fractionized to pieces, and nothing of note would have remained. For a better understanding we add that fractures always begin at a definite point within the material propagating from there with a certain fracture velocity which may change during propagation and may even become zero. Then the fracture stops unless it is again fed with energy and continues running.

As for the Chiemgau impact and shock spallation quite peculiar conditions are met namely particularly in the form of very solid cobbles of Alpine lithology. Apart from the occurrence as components of the strongly cemented Nagelfluh plates, the cobbles are in general found in loose bulk and, hence, predestined for a reaction to the passage of shock waves with resulting spallation. It’s not just the extreme contrast of impedance at the cobbles’ surface, also their frequently nodular shape may boost the effect by internal focusing of the shock and rarefaction waves in part yielding enormous energy densities.

As early as in the beginning of our impact research in the Chiemgau crater strewn field we have reported on these deformations and have shown typical photos of spallation fractures down to microscopic scales. Here, we present new examples from recent investigations near the small town of Obing north of Lake Chiemsee. The reader may forgive our keeping secret about the precise coordinates of the impact sites. Our bad experiences with ransacked smaller craters and with the Tüttensee crater where practically all rocks with impact-typical deformations have been removed by rock hunters or people disliking our impact research are forcing us in order to preserve these peculiar impact features for science and interested scientists.

Fig. 2. A quartzite cobble exhibiting a prominent spallation fracture which like the rock in Fig. 1 has not completely split the cobble. In Fig. 3 we point to features very characteristic of spallation fracturing.

Fig. 3. A close-up of the spallation fracture in Fig. 2 shows some typical behavior: Frequently, the pathway of the spallation fracture proves to be a mirror image of the cobble’s surface curvature, and in the case under discussion we have marked the axis of mirror symmetry by a blue dashed line. This may be understood as a consequence of the reflection of the shock (compressive) wave at the free surface for geometrical reasons leading to a mirrored front of the reflected rarefaction wave.

Fig. 4. Spallation fractures in a gneiss cobble. Here again the open fractures do not split the cobble completely, and here again the geometry of the roughly perpendicularly oriented ruptures mirrors the shape of the angular cobble.

Fig. 5. Open spallation fractures in a garnet amphibolite.

The examples of spallation fractures in quartzite, limestone, gneiss and amphibolite cobbles demonstrate that the process is independent of rock lithology und produces recurrent features.

To obviate objections these deformations have already originated from tectonics in the Alps (regularly claimed by local geologists) and have been transported in the form of cobbles in rapid glacial and post-glacial streams and in the end to have been deposited near Obing north of Lake Chiemsee, we point to the frequently very fragile character of the cobbles. Moreover, any strong pressure having acted on the cobbles can basically be excluded because they would inevitably have been broken and sheared.

For comparison spallation like in cobbles from the Chiemgau crater strewn field is shown in the next figures with examples from the Ries impact crater und the Spanish Azuara http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/er01000b.html Rubielos de la Cérida impact structures. The latter occurrences have been investigated more intensively including spallation experiments. A related article has been published in the prestigious GEOLOGY journal (see here where the full article can be downloaded), and an extended report may be read here.

Fig. 6. Limestone cobble from the ejecta (Bunte Breccia) of the Ries impact structure (Nördlinger Ries crater) showing spallation fractures that have not split the cobble. After the shock spallation the deformation of the cobble continued – probably in the course of excavation – without dissecting it.

 Fig. 7. Quartzite cobbles from the Spanish large Azuara and Rubielos de la Cérida impact structures showing very typical shock-induced open spallation fractures. For some of the fissures the rough mirror symmetry of surface and fracture geometry becomes again evident. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiemgau_impact_hypothesis

THE CHIEMGAU METEORITE IMPACT AND TSUNAMI EVENT (SOUTHEAST GERMANY): FIRST OSL DATING

I. Liritzis, N. Zacharias, G.S. Polymeris, G. Kitis, K. Ernstson, D. Sudhaus, A. Neumair, W. Mayer, M.A. Rappenglück, B. Rappenglück

Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 17‐33

The full article may be clicked here:

PDF

[1] A POSSIBLE NEW IMPACT SITE NEAR NALBACH (SAARLAND, GERMANY)
E. Buchner, W. Müller and M. Schmieder
www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2011/pdf/5048.pdf
[2] NALBACH (SAARLAND, GERMANY) AND WABAR (SAUDI ARABIA) GLASS – TWO OF A KIND?
M. Schmieder, W. Müller and E. Buchner
www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2011/pdf/5059.pdf
[3] IMPACTITES AND RELATED LITHOLOGIES IN GERMANY – CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
M. Schmieder, W. Müller, L. Förster and E. Buchner
www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc2011/pdf/5060.pdf

Among the authors W(erner) Müller is particularly singled out who has only recently performed meticulous field work near the town of Nalbach in the Saarland region near the French border. He sampled a large amount of peculiar rocks and natural glasses as well as suspected iron meteorites. From these finds he concludes the possible existence of a meteorite impact only in younger times, and as the discoverer of the phenomenon he has published an article in the Scribd scientific internet forum:

Prims: a possible Holocene meteorite impact in the Saarland region, West Germany
which may be clicked HERE

This postulated meteorite impact is shortly attended by the other authors in the above-mentioned abstracts where the original Scribd article is referred to only in abstract [2], but strangely not in abstract [1] obviously standing more to reason thematically.

The close relation to the Chiemgau impact arises from Werner Müller’s Scribd article and, hence, comprises the abstract articles of Buchner et al. and Schmieder et al. As can be read in the article of Müller and especially pointed out by him, many striking parallels to finds in the Chiemgau meteorite crater strewn field are obvious:
– pebbles and cobbles showing mechanical load and high-temperature signature in the form of glass coating and interspersing the in most cases sandstone samples
– polymictic breccias
– slag-like melt rocks
– glass as matrix of melt rocks with various rock fragments
– glass-like carbon
– spherules
– probably shock-induced spallation effects in melt rocks

The reader is encouraged to take a look at the images in Werner Müller’s Scribd article and to compare them with the Chiemgau samples. Images are to be found on the website http://www.chiemgau-impact.com/petrographie.html and in the Ernstson et al., 2010 article or, as originals, in the Grabenstätt impact museum

Although there is so far no definite age for the postulated Saarland impact, W. Müller, because of first-sight field impressions and considering the in most cases very fresh glasses, clearly favors a Holocene age. Hence, with regard to the Chiemgau impact Holocene age the obvious question arises whether the Chiemgau and Saarland impacts may belong to the very same cosmic event. This can be imagined given the cosmic projectile was already in disintegration when approaching Earth (like, e.g. in the 1994 Shoemaker-Levi-9 comet crash with Jupiter) and in the end leaving impact scars in an even much larger strewn field than hitherto assumed for the Chiemgau impact.

From this viewpoint of a relation of both phenomena it is rather remarkable if the CIRT research project on the Chiemgau meteorite impact achieves considerable support by two of the abstract authors (E. Buchner, M. Schmieder) as is well known confirmed opponents of the CIRT research and of the Chiemgau impact at all. Notably the hint of Buchner et al. [1] to a possible meteoritic airburst to have produced the Saarland impact signature raises attention because such a possibility has already been discussed for the Chiemgau impact event in the context of the formation of some peculiar craters there (e.g. Ernstson et al., 2010, S. 92-93).

A comment on the abstract article of Schmieder et al. [3] is being added. The authors refer to several structures in Germany for which a meteoritic origin has been postulated, “[cit.] however, all of these geologic features currently lack evidence for shock metamorphism and/or meteoritic matter as proof for impact”. Among these structures, the Chiemgau impact has been classified, thereby referring to the 30 pages article ‘Ernstson K. et al. 2010. J. Siberian Fed. Univ. Engin. Technol. 1:72–103 (HERE to be downloaded)‘ Either have Schmieder and Buchner never read this basic and comprehensive article about the Chiemgau impact or they calculatedly conceal that on p. 82-83 under the heading 8. Shock metamorphism generally accepted impact shock effects in rocks from the Chiemgau craters together with several photomicrographs are reported. The shock effects include multiple sets of planar deformation features (PDFs) with up to five sets in one quartz grain, and diaplectic glass requiring even higher shock pressures of formation than do PDFs.

This keeping silence about proofs for the Chiemgau impact and at the same time claiming the Chiemgau impact is not confirmed [3], is rather odd with regard to the fact that comparably unambiguous impact proofs for the Saarland phenomenon could so far not be presented [1].

Owing to the promising similarities between Chiemgau impact material and material from the Saarland area we can but encourage the colleagues to perform continuing research. We are glad to see that the research of Buchner and Schmieder on the Saarland impact contributes to a better understanding of the Chiemgau impact, even though their work features some deficits and oddness.

SEM and TEM analyses of minerals xifengite, gupeiite, Fe2Si (hapkeite?), titanium carbide (TiC) and cubic moissanite (SiC) from the subsoil in the Alpine Foreland: Are they cosmochemical?

M. Hiltl1, F. Bauer2, K. Ernstson3, W. Mayer4, A. Neumair4, and M.A. Rappenglück4
1Carl Zeiss Nano Technology Systems GmbH, Oberkochen, Germany, 2Oxford Instruments GmbH NanoScience, Wiesbaden, Germany, 3University of Würzburg, Germany, 4Institute for Interdisciplinary Studies, Gilching, Germany

Click here..

In summer 2010 the historian Barbara Rappenglück and other scientists of the Chiemgau Impact Research Team have published an article in the prestigious international journal “Antiquity”. The article having been peer-reviewed by independent international experts is entitled “The fall of Phaethon: a Greco-Roman geomyth preserves the memory of a meteorite impact in Bavaria (south-east Germany)“ (Antiquity 84, 2010, 428-439; http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/084/ant0840428.htm). In the actual issue of “Antiquity” officials of the Bavarian State Office for Environment (LfU) give a (not peer-reviewed) “Response” to the article of Rappenglück et al., trying to basically question the existence of a meteorite impact in the Chiemgau area (Bavaria, Germany), the so-called Chiemgau impact (Doppler et al., Antiquity 85, 2011, 274-277). Rappenglück et al. reply in the same issue of „Antiquity“ and reject the objections of the LfU (Antiquity 85, 2011, 278-280; http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/ant0850278.htm). The copyright guidelines of “Antiquity” do not allow for making the text available on this website. Hence we here give an overview of our rejection.

Doppler et al.’s argumentation relies on studies that are based on approaches inappropriate for impact research. This is illustrated by the following example: Doppler et al. (2011: 276) reject our proposed 900×400 m double-crater (Ernstson et al. 2010: 21; Rappenglück et al. 2010: 430) in Lake Chiemsee with the argument that “over 200 km of seismic profiles” and four piston cores had not shown any “major disturbance in the sedimentary sequence”. Let us first look at the “200 km of seismic profiles”. This seemingly remarkable length, being projected on the expanse of Lake Chiemsee with its 80 km2 as an orthogonal net, turns out to produce a big mesh size of about 800 m. This means that even a big structure like the double-crater could easily have escaped detection. In comparison, our detection of the double-crater happened by spider-web-like sonar measurements of a small section of the lake. Let us additionally look on Doppler et al.’s four piston cores. With respect to impact research four cores in relation to an expanse of 80 km2 are comparable to a needle in a haystack. Additionally, Doppler et al. are taken in by the misapprehension that in case of secondary impacts into Lake Chiemsee its total lakebed would have been completely disturbed (Doppler et al. 2011: 276: “They [the cores] produced undisturbed sections and show no indication of a major disturbance in the sedimentary sequence which would be expected from an impact.”) This idea shows an amateur-like understanding of impact processes and a total ignorance of the geophysics involved in a meteorite impact, as will be shown in the next paragraph dealing with their drilling at Lake Tüttensee.

The central argument of Doppler et al. is based on a drilling at the edge of Lake Tüttensee, where they encountered “an undisturbed sequence ranging from 4800 years ago near the surface to 12 500 years ago from the lake deposits at the base” (Doppler et al. 2011: 274). From this observation they conclude that neither the Tüttensee basin is a meteorite crater nor has it been formed in very recent Holocene times (as claimed by us), but owes its existence to the last ice age. Doppler et al.’s conclusion is based on the (false) assumption that the location of their drilling is inside the crater. The question whether the location is inside or outside the crater is essential with respect to the intensity of the impact forces, their propagation and their effects. The nowadays visible rests of the rim wall suggests that the location of the drilling should be inside the original crater. But as it is illustrated in the graphics, this is not true. The location of the drilling is outside the original cavity of the crater, where according to impact cratering shock intensities are already lowered to such a degree (a few kbars maximum pressure) that minor deformations are not possibly to be seen in a few-centimeter diameter sized drill core, not to mention the absence of any detectable enhanced temperature signature. Hence, Doppler et al.’s central argument proofs to be invalid.

Simplified impact cratering process and the position of the LfU drill hole. First published in ‘Antiquity’ 85, 2011, 279.

Here we point out our decisive argument for a meteorite impact, which has been consequently ignored by Doppler et al. Planar deformation features (PDFs) in quartz, a manifestation of shock metamorphism of rocks, is internationally accepted as proof of an impact (Stöffler & Langenhorst 1994: 165). PDFs are the result of very short-term but extreme forces (minimum pressures for the formation of PDFs in quartz are about 5-10 GPa [50-100 kbar]) and can only be caused by the impact of a meteorite. Neither tectonic processes nor the pressure of rock or ice overburden produce effects attributed to shock metamorphism. We have found PDFs in rocks from the Tüttensee ring wall and in the surrounding ejecta layer (as well as in other parts of our crater strewn field) (Ernstson et al. 2010: 82). These rocks were shocked in the very beginning of the impact in the center of the expanding cavity, excavated from the crater and deposited outside of it. A photomicrograph of such PDFs was published in our article (Rappenglück et al. 2010: fig. 3); PDFs from several locations in our crater field can be seen in Ernstson et al. (2010: 82). For that reason alone the Chiemgau meteorite impact is confirmed.

Instead of facing up this evidence of shock metamorphism and respecting the internationally accepted cogency of shock metamorphism for the proof of a meteorite impact, Doppler et al. try to persuade their readers that their (untenable) criticism of secondary aspects (be it the question of the dating, of the carbonaceous spherules, the strongly corroded cobbles, the vitrified stones, the so-called groove stones, the iron silicides etc.) brings discredit on the impact event as a whole. With this tactics our critics for one thing apply an unscientific practice, for another thing they thereby give proof of their fundamental lack of knowledge concerning impact research and the accepted criterions in this field of research. Doppler et al. by themselves provide an almost absurd evidence of this ignorance by mentioning „astronomical conditions required as a criteria for an impact“ (Doppler et al. 2011: 277, with reference to Heinlein). Such “astronomical conditions required as criteria for an impact” simply do not exist. The reference to Heinlein (Der so genannte „Kelten-Killer-Komet“ – Gab es einen Kometeneinschlag im Chiemgau? Journal für Astronomie, III/2009, Nr. 30, Zeitschrift der Vereinigung der Sternfreunde e.V., p. 84-86.) shows that a confusion of „criteria“ and „model calculations“ is obviously given. Model calculations are characterized by a number of variables that have to be adapted in accordance to the progress of science. Hence they cannot serve as criteria for the proof of anything, and our critics are taken in by a misapprehension. At http://www.chiemgau-impact.com/neu_disk.html more detailed information concerning the internationally accepted criteria for meteorite impacts are available as well as an overview how the Chiemgau impact matches these criteria.

In addition:

Here we present some examples of Doppler et al.’s false handling of our text in “Antiquity” (Rappenglück et al. 2010: 428-439) that show that Doppler et al.’s text even lacks the fundamental formal demands of a scientific debate.

Doppler et al. (2011: 274) contend that we would date the Chiemgau impact to “some 2500 years ago” in “the Iron Age”. In actual fact we have dated the event to a period of 4200-2800 years ago (2200-800 BC), this means the Bronze Age (Rappenglück et al. 2010: 436).

Doppler et al. (2011: 274) contend that we would date the impact by the myth. This is false: We have dated the impact and the myth independently from each other and then compared the dates (Rappenglück et al. 2010: 435-37).

Doppler et al. contend (2011: 276) that we would claim that once the Lake Chiemsee included the Lake Tüttensee. This is simply not true, and of course they fail to mention the passage in our “Antiquity” article, where this assertion should allegedly be made. This kind of handling our text can at least be called slipshod, if it is not willful distortion.

Remarkably, this kind of handling texts continues even with studies that they use to underpin their statements: Doppler et al. (2011: 277) contend that Möslein identified the disputed deposit at Stöttham “as anthropogenic”. Of course they do not give a reference, because in his excavation report (Möslein, S., 2009. Grabungsbericht. Chieming TS, Stöttham-Dorfäcker 2007/08. Technical report, Bad-Tölz, unpubl.; available at the administrative district office of Traunstein) Möslein does not at all classify the process of deposition of the layer in question (Möslein 2009: 14f.).

Doppler et al. (2011: 276) also cite Gareis (Gareis, J. 1978. Die Toteisfluren des bayerischen Alpenvorlandes als Zeugnis für die Art des spätwürmzeitlichen Eisschwundes [Würzburger Geographische Arbeiten 46]. Würzburg) as a key witness for the glacial formation of the Tüttensee landscape. But Gareis (1978: 68) several times explicitly excludes a glacial origin of parts of the Tüttensee rim wall.

These examples cast a poor light even on the formal solidity of Doppler et al.’s text.

Recommended for further reading:

Ernstson, K., Mayer, W., Neumair, A., Rappenglück, B., Rappenglück, M.A., Sudhaus, D., Zeller, K.W. (2010), The Chiemgau Crater Strewn Field: Evidence of a Holocene Large Impact Event in Southeast Bavaria, Germany: Journal of Siberian Federal University, Engineering & Technologies 3 (1), 72-103. (http://elib.sfu-kras.ru/bitstream/2311/1631/1/04_.pdf)

Hiltl, M., F. Bauer, K. Ernstson, W. Mayer, A. Neumair, M.A. Rappenglück (2011), SEM and TEM analysis of minerals xifengite, gupeiite, Fe2Si (hapkeite?), titanium carbide (TIC) and cubic moissanite (SiC) from the subsoil in the Alpine Foreland: Are they cosmochemical?: 42nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 1391.pdf. (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1391.pdf)

Liritzis, I., N. Zacharias, G.S. Polymeris, G. Kitis, K. Ernstson, D. Sudhaus, A. Neumair, W. Mayer, M.A. Rappenglück, B. Rappenglück (2010), The Chiemgau Meteorite Impact and Tsunami Event (Southeast Germany): First OSL Dating: Mediterranean Archaeology & Archaeometry, Vol.10, No. 4 (in press).

Rappenglück B., K. Ernstson, W. Mayer, A. Neumair, M.A. Rappenglück, D. Sudhaus, K.W. Zeller (2009), The Chiemgau impact: an extraordinary case study for the question of Holocene meteorite impacts and their cultural implications, Proceedings, Cosmology across cultures, ASP Conference Series 409, San Francisco, Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 338-343. (http://www.aspbooks.org/a/volumes/article_details/?paper_id=30130)

Rappenglück, B., M.A. Rappenglück, K. Ernstson, W. Mayer, A. Neumair, D. Sudhaus, I. Liritzis (2010), The fall of Phaethon: a Greco-Roman geomyth preserves the memory of a meteorite impact in Bavaria (south-east Germany), Antiquity 84, 2010, 428-439. (http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/084/ant0840428.htm)

Schüssler, U., M. Rappenglück, K. Ernstson, W. Mayer, B. Rappenglück (2005), Das Impakt-Kraterstreufeld im Chiemgau: European Journal of Mineralogy 17, Bh. 1, 124.

Barbara Rappenglück1, Michael A. Rappenglück1, Kord Ernstson2, Werner Mayer1, Andreas Neumair1, Dirk Sudhaus3 & Ioannis Liritzis4