[meteorite-list] A Metallic Asteroid May Have Coincided With The Fall Of Rome

From: Robert & Wendi Beauford <wendirob_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Thu Apr 22 10:18:26 2004
Message-ID: <001901c2d081$28704480$a0251fd8_at_wendirob>

"Inviolate for 1,100 years, Rome was sacked by the hordes in 410 AD."
Eh!?! Don't tell the Celts.

Also, the term dark ages was retrospective, and came into use at the
renaissance. The downfall of Rome rested on 200 years of complex
circumstance, and the plagues came and went at will over a millenium. It's
easy to compress the events of 300AD to 1400AD and explain them away with
simplicities when you look at them edge on, but it's not at all accurate.

"The event you're referring to, Mark, happened in 534-537 AD, not 436-437."
Which, incidently, was one of the brightest periods in the relatively
flourishing Byzantine society in the East under Justinian I.

The whole thing sort of doesn't fit. The Romans, even at their fall, and
later the Byzantines, were compulsive about writing down things like that.

-Robert B.



"A plague runs rampant though the "civilized world" of the Roman Empire and
Europe since the sun shipitifullyully for a couple hours a
> day and cold temperatures have set in when it should
> be warm. Famine hits hard in South America and disease
> speads in the Moche Empire. This, I believe is what
> happened to the Roman Empire and the Moche of Peru. I
> also believe it caused the dark ages, and it isn't
> just a term used to describe a time of no advancement
> and loss of intelligence in a civilization.
> Mark

The event you're referring to, Mark, happened in 534-537 AD, not
> 436-437. There are two books out about this event. One is by the Irish
> dentrochronologist Bailley (spelling of name uncertain) and I can't
> immediately recall the author of the other.
> One suggests a small comet or asteroid strike as the best explanation
> for all these sudden disastrous events; the other suggests an eruption of
> Krakatoa. There was an earlier eruption of Krakatoa that was about 10
> times bigger than the 1880's event, and there are lots of places where
> that eruption's ash and lava can be found.
> BUT, so far it has proved undatable. Geologically, it can only be
> pinned down to a 1200 year range of likely dates, which is a pretty loose
> fit. There were a number of authors who have dealt with parts and pieces
> of this puzzle previously.
> The British astronomers Clube and Napier found evidence 20 years ago
> for an impact event at this time in England and for numerous other small
> "strikes" in many parts of the globe; they suggest a "shower" event in
> which the Earth was bombarded by a multiplicity of small to medium
> strikes which would not leave one big crater but many small, easily
> eroded ones. And a shower event, could be spread out over many years, of
> course, or repeat periodically for a century or so.
> And then, there's the recently suggested connection between impact
> events and volcanic events, which might mean that chosing one cause or
> the other (impact vs. volcanic) is less clear cut than it might seem. Of
> course, this idea has earned its share of pooh-pooh'ing. I suggested it
> 40 years when I was a grad student and received more than my share of
> pooh's as I recall.
> As a physicist, my argument was that sudden volcanic and tectonic
> events (earthquakes) have to be triggered by something (physical things
> have causes), since the configuration of forces that makes them happen
> remains in force for years, decades, centuries without anything at all
> happening, then all at once they let go.
> There is no obvious cause detectable for these events (else we could
> predict them), no big change in forces, etc. Therefore, the triggering
> event is not overtly large in magnitude (just bad luck). That would mean
> that one good kick in the crust is more than enough if correctly placed.
> Hey, we even have a name for it in physics: metastable.
> Geologists don't like the idea, though... Go back and play with your
> electrons, is pretty much their response.
> If you like negative evidence, one could point to the fact that
> disappointed vulcanologists frequently complain that this has been the
> quietest century for volcanoes in a long, long time, and we haven't had
> even one respectable small cratering event this century, either.
>
>
> Sterling
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> mark ferguson wrote:
>
> > Hi Ron and List
> > Seems many things happened in the 5th century AD. A
> > meteorite impact sure would upset the masses, but
> > findings from around the world show a significant
> > volcanic event occurred about 436-437 AD. Writings
> > from many places indicate severely diminished sunlight
> > hrs for many months and lending credibility to the
> > term "The Dark Ages". It appears that a super plinian
> > volcano, very possibly Krakatoa, let loose and effects
> > may well have been felt world wide. Sulphuric spikes
> > in ice corings correlate the date as well as tree
> > rings from lock and bog fortresses in Ireland. A
> > Chinese prince writes of yellow dust falling to the
> > ground so thick you can scoop up handfuls and with the
> > sun shinning only dimly for an hour or two a day, he
> > fears how to feed his people as the crops won't grow
> > in conditions like this. A plague runs rampant though
> > the "civilized world" of the Roman Empire and Europe
> > since the sun shipitifullyully for a couple hours a
> > day and cold temperatures have set in when it should
> > be warm. Famine hits hard in South America and disease
> > speads in the Moche Empire. This, I believe is what
> > happened to the Roman Empire and the Moche of Peru. I
> > also believe it caused the dark ages, and it isn't
> > just a term used to describe a time of no advancement
> > and loss of intelligence in a civilization.
> > Mark
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/science/story/0,12450,889308,00.html
> >
> >A metallic asteroid may have coincided with the fall of Rome, says
> >Duncan Steel
> >
> >The Guardian (United Kingdom)
> >February 6, 2003
> >
> >......
> >
> >No matter what the trajectory of the asteroid entry, it would have
> >been a phenomenal sight from Rome, and scarier still for those closer
> >to ground zero.
> ......
>
> dear list
>
> sorry to be asteroid skeptic again but this newspaper article goes
> really beyond acceptable journalistic extrapolation.
>
> The Sirente "crater" lies about 60 km E of Roma and they are various
> moutain ridges up to 2500 m in between the two places. Roma is near
> sea level and the first mountain range eastward is only 15 km away.
> So if the trajectory was westward, no way that " it would have been a
> phenomenal sight from Rome".
>
> even if the trajectory was in sight, can fear trigger the fall of
> Rome? These people were educated, they knew about comets and
> eclipses, they were used to natural disasters, frequent floods and
> earthquakes, volcanic eruption (remember Pompei!). A 100 m crater has
> negligible climatic effect.
>
> If the event was so phenomenal how come that there is no historical
> record (again compare to Pompei)??? We are not talking about a remote
> place in Homeric time.
> All this scenario is mere nonsense in terms of history.
>
> But the biggest trouble is that the Sirente "crater" lacks to fulfill
> any of the criteria for asteroid impact, despite careful search by
> Ormo et al: no evidence of shock or fused material, not a single
> extraterrestrial crumb found (just Ni free "rust"), no real ejecta
> layer (just a 10 m wide 1-2 m high rim of reworked soil and sediment,
> which is quite small for a 100 m wide crater!), no geophysical
> anomaly, no nothing, just a circular pond and a bunch of meter sized
> depressions... A reasonable explanation for all these structures,
> knowing that the place has been frequented for many centuries by
> millions of cattle looking for water, rare in these calcareous
> ranges, is that the shepherds simply dig them as a reservoir or wells.
> --
> Pierre
Received on Sun 09 Feb 2003 04:21:05 PM PST