Kerr Watch

Elapsed time since Richard Kerr failed to inform his Science readers of the confirmation of nanodiamonds at the YDB: 6 years, 2 months, and 2 days

Whatapaper: Baillie and McAneney on the Bronze Age Cosmic Collapse




Below is a superbly written exploration of the climate collapse(s) circa. 2200 B.C. by occasional Tusk commentor Jonny McAneney and his mentor, long-time Tusk favorite Mike Baillie.

I don’t know how I missed this paper, but I do know how I found it. Jonny thoughtfully posted the public link back in December 15, 2015 in a Tusk comment and, ever cognizant of each and every word posted here, I stumbled upon the link after midnight last night, May 14. I read late into the night, thrilled with the eloquence of their argument and the depth — and width — of their research and knowledge.



Download (PDF, 730KB)

  • CevinQ

    It is a very good paper, and confirms a suspicion i have had, that the events of the bronze age were part of a larger series of events that were spread over the course of several centuries.

  • Outstanding. What a great way to start the week. Congratulations, guys. Super work. Cheers –

  • carol smith

    Have any of the other papers/articles been translated into English?

  • Jonny

    All the articles are in English but you would need to contact the individual authors for a copy or locate them on the authors institutional or personal websites (such as researchgate or assuming they have posted their articles online.

  • carol smith

    This of course has chronological implications. If the 2200BC event coincides with end of the Akkadian Empire as suggested by Courty and then the 2350BC event would coincide with end of Dynastic Sumeria (which occurred abruptly and was followed by the arrival of newcomers in northern Babylonia, the Akkadians). Unfortunately, whereas once this fitted perfectly into the orthodox chronology (with smallish adjustments) this is not the case now with the use of calibrated C14 where the end of the Early Bronze period is being pushed back to around 2500BC. In Europe this has affected the dates applied to the Beaker folk migrations and to major changes undertaken at Stonehenge. If two major cosmic events occurred they may have inspired the changes at Stonehenge – which was always a good explanation (and synchronisation). Also, it tends to undermine a lot of the archaeological evidence produced by Mandelkehr (he died a few years ago but devoted his retirement to researching the period around 2300BC). His articles on geology, archaeology, astronomy etc will be available online at the SIS web site next year.

  • David Ulrich

    And of course, we have no yet mentioned what happened on the Asian continent. If I remember correctly, the Chinese civilization also took a major hike to no-man’s land…..

  • CevinQ

    Yes, the chinese did experience a great deal of socio-cultural upheaval during this period, from the paper;

    “Interest in this apparently localised inundation led to the discovery that traditions from around the world preserve stories specifically dated to within 1o years of 235o BC. These stories involve the Chinese emperor Yao (traditional reign date 2357 BC), who presided over a series of catastrophes, including floods, in 2346 BC;”

  • I just read the paper, dates to myths makes it even more interesting. Just watch the first 35 seconds of this video and try to tell yourselves that myth and traditions are fabricated global coincidences.

  • George Howard

    Right on, Bard.

  • I am interested to know more about the calibrated C14 record that is now moved (carol smith). I have done my own independent research and found a 340 year anomaly at around 2800BC…

  • it’s me
  • it’s me

    but now that I think about it to think after all those billions and billions and billions of ” scientifically proven” years , yet the earth has only been able to “capture “at most two speeding bullets and maybe the moon . that is at least interesting to wonder about ! I wonder how the earth slowed down even those two speeding bullets ? ;P

  • I just ran across this

    About the 5th century AD event, never saw the Japanese cedar time line before or “the letters of Cassiodorus” IIRC.

  • CevinQ

    Thanks for posting that, it is very informative.
    It is looking mor and more that Baillie and gang were right after all, and the earth had a double or triple whammy in the the sixth century, with a couple of major volcanoes and an encounter with a comet.

    And BTW, I started your book, when I got it, but a few days later I got a new puppy, and OMG she was like an infant-three year old child for the first few months. There was literally no time to read, but now she’s finally mellowed out a little so I got back to it this week.

  • CevinQ – Your welcome, I was searching for old illustrations of comets and found that. I prefer the older stuff, but it is still interesting as Arthur seems to come from the Egyptian Hathor as if they equate the same phenomena with the Brindle Bovine of Druid folklore.

    Sounds like me trying to read the Kalevala (Finnish Mythology) as I keep getting sidetracked, plus some very obscure stories that have been watered down and are very hard to gather information when being interrupted. Even though, within their cosmology a teal lays its eggs on the knee of a maiden floating in the sea “Six golden eggs she laid within it (the nest on her knee), And a seventh she laid of iron.”.

  • Cevin Q

    Yet again the number 7 pops its head up, and the iron reference brings up aboriginal Australian memories of star babies and sky fire devils

  • it’s me

    Cevin you will want to read about the Guanches Guayota ( sp? I forgot how it is spelled ) / like a coyote . it is a Dog god/a shape shifting fire devil who created their volcano . you can search it and find all stories of it. it took me quite awhile to find many parts of their stories/ history and other histories and tradtions.

  • CevinQ

    It’s me,
    I am familiar with the Guanches story, and it is one of those rare incidents of mythology that might show native americans traveled farther than is now recognized.

    Coyotl is the Nahuatl(an Uto Aztecan language spoken by the the people of central mexico), word from which coyote comes from. In most native american lore coyote is considered a trickster.

  • There is another contender to the 2345bce event. It is what George F Dodwell had discerned from the ancient measurements of obliquity. Plato in fact did say in the ‘Timaeus’ that it “really signifies a declination of the bodies in the heavens moving around the earth”.

    Now there is a megalithic calendar built around 3000bce (after 3195 -an important dendrochronological date)and surviving to after 2200, that exhibits such a design modification. Recently tested in model form, it is extremely accurate in forecasting the solstice date (if interested see at this site ).

  • Steve Garcia

    c r sant –

    Do be careful when using translated terms like “declination”. Derived from “decline”, in Plato’s usage it might well mean something different from the current astronomical meaning.

    In addition, the Greek term may have different annotations and connotations, too.

    Taking any terms literally when translating across both languages and time can be fraught with misconceptions.

  • Steve Garcia-

    Certainly. But this time Plato (and his translator)may have been very precise. A declining of the ecliptic is what is observed from earth when obliquity changes. He was likely referring to an earlier event (3195bce or earlier, pre 4375bce). (Same for Herodotus and Mela –“the stars change their course..” Stars -steady stars-not comets or meteors.

    Of course much of what has been said has always been subject to more than one interpretation, requiring caution but also an open mind. But what I point out to is a range of mathematically engineered optical calendars, whose function, once perceived, and eventually tested, is difficult to ignore what is inferred in their design parameters. And there are just far too many technicalities that corroborate, for one to conclude possible chance and coincidence.

    Dodwell’s work, and what I refer to above, tend to prove that what after all is an old assumption -a near stable obliquity-is wrong.

  • Steve Garcia

    c r sant –

    Well, Plato could easily have meant that bodies were falling down onto the Earth, too. Falling is also declining.

    But perhaps BOTH happened. My own thinking agrees with the change in declination of the heavenly bodies – especially (but no limited to) the signs of the zodiac, which follow the ecliptic. (the obliquity issue here.) If that changing of the ecliptic happened, and is read correctly, then it is a clear line of evidence that the earth had a lithosphere-depth pole shift. Certainly the stars did not all shift many millions of light-years, all in tandem. A FULL shift (which would include the core and mantle) would have changed the actual rotation direction. That would not constitute a declining of the ecliptic, but a total change of the direction of spin. If, instead, the lithosphere was to slide over the mantle, and then stop sliding, with a local spot then in a new location on the spinning earth, the core and mantle would still rotate in the same way, but the surface locations would show new latitudes – and a new angle for the ecliptic and the zodiac.

    In Ed Grondine’s book, he describes one account from the Mayans, in which the alligator in the sky (which at least SOME archaeologists think is the Milky Way), “moved up”. To me this could be interpreted to mean that the Mayan area moved south and its latitude changed to one closer to the equator. Such a crustal movement would have to be experienced as a change in latitude and observations that the Milky Way was higher in the sky (more toward Polaris).*** The Mayans also described that at the same time, fiery objects falling down, as well as a huge flood which reached all the way to the Petén, the center of the Yucatán peninsula. They tell how almost all the people died then. All of this is consistent with a lithospheric shift over the mantle. (Ed will not like me re-interpreting his passages, but all passages are free for us to interpret any way we choose. He, in fact, translates several passages in his own way, which is somewhat different from the original translations.

    And, YES, we should always be careful when translating or interpreting. The vagaries of translations are exactly why we should never take an establishment arkie’s word for it on any translation. They are REQUIRED, career-wise, to translate within a non-catastrophic viewpoint. But if catastrophes actually happened, then their translations are automatically wrong. Thus, if such catastrophes happened and people witnessed them and remembered them for their cultures, then it is wrong to translate the passages without considering them describing actual catastrophes. Enough of them even within the establishment translations already indicate some sort of catastrophes, so accepting them as possible REAL live catastrophes, it behooves us to try to elicit what the meanings of the passages are, within a catastrophic viewpoint, not a uniformitarian one.

    No scientists or arkies are going to ever be convinced by alternate researchers and their re-interpretations of events recorded in ancient cultures, though. Ed Grondine tries it and does a pretty darned good job of it, on the ones I’ve seen. But those are not sufficient. The only thing that will convince them is physical evidence of past impacts and their resulting effects around the world. That is what the YDB team is doing, and even THEY are having trouble with naysayers. This is a subject that will take centuries to iron out.

    When we MUST use such phrases as “He was likely referring to an earlier event“, it underscores the iffiness of translations and interpretations. The individual words chosen in each sentence can make a huge difference in the implied meanings of what is translated. And THEN others read and interpret what the translation means. So, there are two levels at which the meanings can get distorted. If that translation is made with a clear bias toward a uniformitarian perspective, then there is NO chance that any impact account can be read into an any individual passage. But if the impact DID occur, then what? Are we supposed to leave it at that? That the uniformitarians get to dictate what the meaning is?

    Back to the obliquity, I agree with you that a stable obliquity is incorrect. But what exactly do you imply when you say that?

    ***It is difficult to communicate properly, but if the Mayan area moved south, say 30°, then the area of Egypt, being somewhat on the other side of the Earth, would have moved to the NW and changed its latitude by perhaps 10° or 15° or so. This would have certainly been noted by the Egyptian astronomers. This difference has to do with the spherical shape of the Earth. Not all places on earth’s surface can move south together. If one side goes south, the other side must rotate to the north. And places east and west of those would – and must – swing around more sideways.

    Thus, there would be no contradiction if the Mayans talked about the Milky Way moving up”, while the Egyptians talked about the ecliptic declining, or “moving down.” With the precision involved in astronomical observations, such changes could not help being noticed.

    One of the, realities if such an event happened, is that in the region where an event happened, only some of the people could survive to write or talk about it. On the other side of the world the people would likely NOT know what the cause was, and they would merely observe that the sky changed. Thus, at Jericho, during a battle, they only observed that the Sun moved around in the sky in weird ways, but they wouldn’t have a clue why it had happened. If such a thing happened, there would be some very confused people all around the world. Many of them might never know that the crust slipped. They would be left with adjusting their astronomical observations, and going forward with only that. I think it would be the exceptional astronomer who would be able to understand what had happened.

  • Steve Garcia,

    TY for the long post, and the interest. I’ll come to your question on obliquity, -and the 2300bce event-via a little fast-track background info.

    An earlier interest of mine had convinced me that the supposedly cultic megalithic structures necessarily also had a calendar function. That took time to discern how (they in fact follow the sunrise on the horizon, solstice to solstice). Such a process then became very evident – except for an important anomaly. The angle equinox-to-solstice was too narrow. Should have been 30degrees (for my latitude) when it was found to be 18, and consistently so in more than 14 instances at six different sites. Completely baffled. Conventional wisdom says obliquity changes little; ~22-24deg-over many millennia.

    Then Dodwell’s work appeared on the net, saying that according to ancient obliquity measurements it must have changed from a small angle to what it is today. In short it was a completely unconnected corroboration (which others –and I- also checked). It began to appear that conventional wisdom may be in error. I began looking for other evidence preferable from unconnected sources. So far the ancient texts, and Plato, did not figure.

    The megalithic calendars, from their structure, show how they were designed and how they functioned, and also how they evolved technically from one unit to a successive one, over a span of more than two thousand years. I tested both types, the earliest and the latest. They work perfectly. The last, built around 3100-2900bce is at correct earth obliquity (it is extremely accurate and easy to forecast the solstice day with precision-something we modern apes seem unable to do today-see Wiki, solstice determination). Finding the angle the sun moves through from equinox to a solstice takes no more than six months. So the builders got it right after more than 2000 years???? Impossible. What the last built calendar also shows is that it was built on the narrower angle and subsequently modified by extending the display surface to accommodate the wider angle. No date as to when that happened, but it spans the date given by Dodwell (2345bce), by the tree rings (2354-2345) and all the rest of the 2300 events. It also points to what brought about the event.

    Plato (and Herodotus/Mela –and the Maya) were revisited only for a second look from the perspective of the ‘new hindsight’. I see Plato as being very precise. Also, he too had the hindsight provided by Hipparchus and likely would have known how the earth is axially tilted to its orbit. Yes that is still speculation, but the narrow angle is fact.

    The evidence in the structures also tells of more than one instance, a cyclic change in obliquity. Always accompanied by destruction or severe destruction. Corroborative evidence is lacking, except for three dates from dendrochronology. 3195bce (a major destruction, piora oscillation?), 4375 (seems an earlier repeat of the 2345). Then 6200 or 6150 would also fit (the sinking of doggerland). Speculatively I have tried to link these with other data to see what results-they are interesting –see the graph in the FB link in my earlier post (the argument there is that an obliquity increase results in polar temp increase but equatorial cooling). Plato’s story may be one of those earlier events.

  • A side-line to the main subject of the paper, dendrochronology also points firmly to a previous date, 3195bce. Now many have heard about the 2012 Maya prophecy (that wasn’t) and the Long Count calendar from which it started (actually from something Michael Coe said jokingly at the end of one paragraph). However no one seem to have noticed that the Long Count starts from ~~~3114(could be +/-100), quite near the 3195 date.

    Like most other ancient civilisations, they kept a count of time from cataclysmic events (the sumerians -‘from when the flood swept over’).

  • Terence W Moran

    Interesting thread. I am somewhat familiar with the Santorini explosion ~1600 BCE, and the widespread destruction this caused, but was unaware of disruptions at this earlier date.
    I had done some work re. Sumerian Nautical Archaeology in the distant past and may still have some notes. Ur III was a very interesting time with (I believe) major advances in ship design. They were regularly sailing to the Indus Valley with cargoes known to exceed 3,000 ton!
    I’ve bookmarked the paper, but only read the wonderful comments thus far. Still trying to get up to speed on the many sub-topics covered here.


  • Terence W Moran: Then you’ll find Irving Finkel’s book “The arc before Noah” interesting. Not expensive either.