http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

A RE-EVALUATION OF THE EXTRATERRESTRIAL ORIGIN OF THE CAROLINA BAYS *
by J. Ronald Eyton & Judith I. Parkhurst /Paper Number 9 April 1975
Luis E. Ortiz & Susan Gross, editors Geography Graduate Student
Association University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign/ */* The
authors would like to thank Professors Charles S. Alexander and Donald
L. Johnson of the Geography Department of the University of Illinois
for their interest in this project and for their critical review of
the manuscript./*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ABSTRACT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- *Controversy as to the origin of the Carolina Bays has centered on
terrestrial versus extraterrestrial theories. Meteoritic impact has
been considered the primary causal mechanism in extraterrestrial
models, but alternatives such as comets and asteroids have not been
adequately considered. Comets may explode during fall and produce
depressions which would conform to the morphology of the Bays. Only a
comet appears to satisfy the constraints imposed both by
extraterrestrial requirements and observed terrestrial
characteristics.*
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- INTRODUCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Scattered along the eastern coast of the United States from
southern New Jersey to northern Florida are approximately 500,000
elliptical depressions collectively called the Carolina Bays (Figure
1) <#Fig1>. The process or processes forming symmetrical, oriented,
shallow basins of different sizes has been disputed since the unique
character of bay morphology was recognized from aerial photographs
during the 1930's (Melton and Schriever, 1933). To date at least
sixteen hypotheses involving terrestrial or extraterrestrial processes
have been postulated as causal mechanisms. Each theory explains some
but not all of the observed morphological and stratigraphic
characteristics, and each hypothesis has had varying degrees of
acceptance. Most hypotheses concerning the origin of the Carolina Bays
use either marine or subaerial processes. Some use a single process,
others require two or more processes operating simultaneously, whereas
still others envision a series of processes operating sequentially.
The terrestrial hypotheses have been reviewed elsewhere (Johnson,
1942; Prouty, 1952; Thornbury, 1965; Price, 1968), and some of these
theories have been proved mathematically or physically impossible
whereas others are considered improbable. Nonetheless, several marine
as well as subaerial hypotheses listed below still retain supporters.
* * Marine theories include sand bar dams across drowned valleys
(Glenn, 1895); swales in underwater sand dunes (Glenn, 1895);
submarine scour by eddies, currents and undertow (Melton, 1934);
progressive lagoon segmentation (Cooke, 1934); gyroscopic eddies
(Cooke, 1940; 1954); and fish nests created by the simultaneous waving
of fish fins in unison over submarine artesian springs (Grant, 1945).
Subaerial hypotheses include artesian spring sapping (Toumey, 1848);
peat burning by paleo-Indians (Wells and Boyce, 1953); eolian
deflation and/or deposition (Raisz, 1934; Price, 1951, 1958, 1968; and
Carson and Hussey, 1962); solution (Johnson, 1936; Lobeck, 1939; Le
Grand, 1953; and Shockley and others, 1956); periglacial thaw lakes
tWolfe, 1953); wind deflation combined with perched water tables and
lake shore erosion at a 90^o angle to the prevailing wind (Thom,
1970); artesian spring sapping and eolian deposition (Johnson, 1936);
and progressive lagoon segmentation modified by eolian processes
stabilized by climatic changes (Price, 1951, 1958, 1968). Alternative
hypotheses to terrestrial processes thus far have been limited to
showers of meteorites impacting in the area (Melton and Schriever,
1933; Melton, 1934, 1950; Prouty, 1952; and Well and Boyce, 1953). In
this case the Carolina Bays represent scars which have not yet been
obliterated by terrestrial weathering and erosion. Many people found a
meteorite shower to be an appealing explanation because it can explain
many attributes of bay morphology and the apparent uniqueness of the
Carolina Bays. In addition, the area where Carolina Bays are abundant
adjoins a large area from Alabama to Virginia, including much of
Tennessee and Kentucky, where meteorites are abundant. Meteoritic
impact is no longer widely regarded as a plausible hypothesis. No
meteoritic fragments have been found that are genetically related to
the Carolina Bays. No known meteorite falls elsewhere in the world
have resulted in approximately half a million depressions over a wide
area. Studies of magnetic anomalies associated with individual bays
are not conclusive (MacCarthy, 1936; Prouty, 1952). Shatter cones and
high pressure changes in quartz grains associated with known impact
craters are absent. The heavy mineralogy of sediments within one bay
did not differ from sediments beyond the bay rim (Preston and Brown,
1964). The selective confinement of Carolina Bays to one physiographic
province has also been cited as evidence against any extraterrestrial
hypothesis. Recent research in Virginia (Goodwin and Johnson, 1970)
located depressions similar in alignment and morphology to the
Carolina Bays, 345 to 360 feet above sea level, on deeply weathered
Piedmont fluvial gravels. If these depressions are truly Carolina
Bays, terrestrial hypotheses can no longer include marine mechanisms,
considerably restricting the previous list. No marine terraces are
known to be at elevations over 350 feet above sea level along the
Atlantic Coastal Plain (Thornbury, 1965). If bays can no longer be
restricted to a single physiographic province and the list of
potential terrestrial hypotheses is correspondingly reduced to
subaerial mechanisms, the extraterrestrial hypothesis gains more
credence and warrants additional study. We do not believe that any
existing terrestrial theory fully accounts for all the observed
morphologic and stratigraphic characteristics of the Carolina Bays,
nor do we believe that extraterrestrial alternatives have been fully
explored. The extensive literature on Carolina Bays provides a
framework from which we intend to reexamine the extraterrestrial
hypothesis. In particular, we propose to examine the physical and
orbital characteristics of extraterrestrial objects available for
impact, to determine necessary impact parameters which can be met by
these bodies, and to assess the correspondence of Carolina Bay
morphometry and impact mechanics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- CAROLINA BAY CHARACTERISTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Many of the articles mentioned earlier discussed the morphology of
the Carolina Bays and several described the stratiqraphy of one or
more bays. Nonetheless, because the terrestrial or extraterrestrial
hypothesis which eventually becomes accepted must account for salient
features associated with the bays, the characteristics are reviewed.
Figure 2 <#Fig2>, a photomosaic of southeastern Cumberland County,
North Carolina, illustrates many characteristic morphologic details of
the Carolina Bays: 1. The Carolina Bays are ellipses and tend to
become more elliptical with increasing size. Many bays, however, lack
true bilateral symmetry along either the major or minor axis. The
southeast portion of many bays is more pointed than the northwest end
and the northeast side bulges slightly more than the southwest side.
Known major axis dimensions vary from approximately 200 feet to 7
miles. 2. The Carolina Bays display a marked alignment with
northwest-southeast being the preferred orientation. Although there
are minor local fluctuations, deviations from the preferred
orientation appear to be systematic by latitude (Prouty, 1952). 3. The
bays are shallow depressions below the general topographic surface
with a maximum depth of about 50 feet. Large bays tend to be deeper
than small bays, but the deepest portion of any bay is offset to the
southeast from the bay center. 4. Many bays have elevated sandy rims
with maximum development to the southeast. Both single and multiple
rims occur, and the inner ridge of a multiple rim is less well
developed than the outer rim. Rim heights vary from 0 to 23 feet. 5.
Carolina Bays frequently overlap other bays without destroying the
morphology of either depression. One or more small bays can be
completely contained in a larger bay. 6. Some bays contain lakes, some
are boggy, others are either naturally or artificially drained and are
farmed, and still others are naturally dry. 7. The stratigraphy
beneath the bays is not distorted (Preston and Brown, 1964; Thom,
1970). 8. Bays occur only in unconsolidated sediments. Bays in South
Carolina are found on relict marine barrier beaches associated with
Pleistoncene sea level fluctuations, in dune fields, on stream
terraces and sandy portions of backbarrier flats (Thom, 1970). No bays
occur on modern river flood plains and beaches. Bays exist on marine
terraces as much as 150 feet above sea level in South Carolina but
also occur on discontinuous veneers of fluvial gravels on the Piedmont
in Virginia (Goodwin and Johnson, 1970). 9. Carolina Bays appear to be
equally preserved on terraces of different ages and formational
processes. 10. Bays occur in linear arrays, in complex clusters of as
many as fourteen bays, as scattered individuals, and in parallel
groups aligned along the minor axes (Figure 2) <#Fig2>. 11. Bays are
either filled or partly filled with both organic and inorganic
materials. The basal unit in some bays is a silt believed to represent
loess deposited in water. 12. No new bays appear to be forming
although Thom (1970) and Frey (1954) cite evidence for recent
enlargement of existing Carolina Bays. Price (1968) states that most
bays appear to be getting smaller by infilling. 13. Bays are underlain
by carbonate, clastic and crystalline bedrock overlain by variable
thicknesses of unconsolidated sediments in which the bays are found.
14. Ghosts of semi-obliterated Carolina Bays appear to represent
former bays which were filled after formation by terrestrial sediments
and organic materials. 15. Small bays deviate further from the mean
orientation per region than large bays do. 16. No variation in the
heavy mineral suite was found along a traverse of the major axis of
one South Carolina bay, even though samples were taken from the bay
floor, bay rim and the adjacent non-bay terrace (Preston and Brown,
1964). In summation, the remarkable regularity with which these
characteristics recur suggests that further consideration of a unique,
causal mechanism is warranted. With rare exceptions, such as the
aligned lakes of the Arctic Coastal Plain (Carson and Hussey, 1962),
terrestrial processes do not create widespread, elliptical, aligned
landforms. Whereas morphology and alignment are not conclusive proof
of an extraterrestrial hypothesis, and although we recognize valid
weaknesses in the existing meteoritic swarm or shower hypothesis, we
believe that most of these objections should not serve as a deterrent
for a re-examination of additional extraterrestrial alternatives.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- OPPOSING EXPLANATIONS OF BAY CHARACTERISTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Early researchers, notably Melton and Schriever (1933) and Prouty
(1952), inferred an extraterrestrial causal mechanism primarily from
the regularity with which elements of bay morphology repeated
themselves in the Carolina Bays. They concluded that the list of
characteristics was best explained by impact of a meteorite shower
(Melton and Schriever, 1933) or its shock wave (Prouty, 1935; 1952;
MacCarthy, 1936). They speculated that the meteorite shower or swarm
might be related to a degenerate comet perturbed into a low angle,
northwest trajectory. This hypotheses accounts for such morphologic
characteristics as maximum rim development offset to the southeast end
of many bays, variable rim height, bay overlap, bays contained within
bays, maximum depth offset southeast from the bay center, variability
in bay size, and equal degree of preservation on surfaces of different
ages. Because a single meteorite shower could not readily explain
ghost bays, Melton (1950) subsequently modified his original impact
hypothesis to include aperiodic meteorite showers, possibly beginning
during the Cretaceous. Critics of the extraterrestrial hypothesis have
also used bay morphology and morphometry to refute an astronomical
origin for the Carolina Bays (Johnson, 1942; Price, 1968). The bays
lack the elevated structural rims associated with known meteorite
impact craters; craters tend to be deep and round whereas the bays are
shallow ellipses; known meteor crater clusters, such as those at Campo
del Cielo, Argentina (Cassidy and others, 1965), do not result in
thousands of depressions across a wide area; and, as noted previously,
no known meteorites are genetically related to bays. Thornbury (1965,
p. 43) added that aperiodic Mesozoic and Cenozoic meteorite showers
are "difficult to visualize in view of the fact that the bays are
present on terrace surfaces that are generally considered to be of
Pleistocene age." The only additional bay characteristic to receive
considerable attention has been bay alignment, although a few
stratigraphic, mineralogic, or ecologic characteristics have also been
studied for individual bays (Frey, 1951; 1954; Preston and Brown,
1964; Thom, 1970). Working in a localized area in South Carolina,
Melton and Schriever (1933) found an apparent parallel orientation for
the major axes of the bays. They assumed that all bays would display
similar orientation because the meteorites in the shower would
maintain roughly the same trajectory. Prouty, using a much larger
sample of bays with greater areal extent, recognized the radial
pattern in bay alignment. The average local orientation of the bays
varies from about south 55^o east in the northwestern portion of the
area to about south 15^o east in the southwestern area. There is thus
a divergence of about 40^o in the elongation direction of the bays in
the two extreme areas. . . . This divergence is due to the fanning-out
effect of a group of bodies, the meteorites, passing through the
resisting gaseous medium of the atmosphere (Prouty, 1952, p. 186).
Prouty added that variance from the mean orientation for bays in a
particular location was caused either by the effects of a "partial
vacuum in the air pressure cone accompanying the fall of tandem
meteorites" (p. 187) or "mild" explosions of meteorites caused by
atmospheric resistance. He suggested that small meteorites would be
more affected by this phenomenon than large ones, causing small
meteorites to deviate further from the original trajectory. While some
opponents of extraterrestrial hypotheses did not consider bay
alignment, others ascribed orientation to a variety of terrestrial
causes. For example, Cooke (1934) said that a unidirectional wind had
generated near-shore currents which created parallel landforms,
accounting for bay alignment and elongation. Johnson (1942) suggested
that elongation and parallelism were caused by joint controlled
artesian springs along the southeasterly regional dip of the strata.
Thom (1970) postulated that southwest winds blowing across preexisting
lakes generated currents which eroded the southeast and northwest
segments of each lake, creating parallel elliptical landforms.
Furthermore, based on evidence from northeast South Carolina, Thom
concluded that mean orientations and standard deviations of Carolina
Bays differed from beach ridges, dune fields, river terraces, and back
barrier flats. Whether this relationship between geomorphology and
orientation would remain consistent on a regional level is not known.
The degree to which this apparent alignment is a function either of
sampling or of bay size per geomorphic setting is also unknown. Small
bays do differ more widely in their orientations than large bays do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- EXTRATERRESTRIAL BAY FORMING MECHANISMS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- With the exception of MacCarthy (1936), who discussed the effects
of the shock wave accompanying infall of meteorites, research on the
Carolina Bays has been concentrated on terrestrial characteristics. No
one has discussed the orbital characteristics of potential impacting
bodies, the extraterrestrial mass required to produce half a million
bays, the availability of extraterrestrial materials, the bay forming
energies available related to different impact velocities and masses,
and whether impact morphometry corresponds to Carolina Bay morphology.
Because the probability of inclusion of any body outside the solar
system is extremely small, the solar system is commonly regarded as a
closed system. If impact of an extraterrestrial body did form the
Carolina Bays, the body or bodies must be contained within the solar
system. Only three minor members of the solar system can possibly
impact on earth: asteroids, comets, and meteoriods. If the Carolina
Bays are the result of a singular extraterrestrial event, then bay
forming impacts could have been caused by any one of these objects.
Examination of the physical and orbital characteristics of these
bodies, then, provides one method for selecting from extraterrestrial
alternatives the most likely bay-forming mechanism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- ORBITAL CHARACTERISTICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Tables 1, 2, and 3 indicate salient characteristics for the three
extraterrestrial alternatives. Of the three, asteroids (Table 1)
<#Table 1> appear to be the most predictable with respect to their
physical and orbital characteristics. They have more regular orbits
than either comets or meteoroids, albeit a few asteroids such as
Icarus and Hidalgo have highly eccentric orbits and Hermes passed
within 500,000 miles of Earth in 1937. Although it is difficult to
determine the actual number of close encounters that have taken place,
Wyatt (1966) assumed one impact per 60,000 years to be a crude
estimate of the probability of impact by an asteroid one mile or less
in diameter. Comets (Table 2 <#Table 2>), on the other hand, have
either parabolic or elliptical orbits, depending on whether or not
they have been perturbed and whether the perturbation resulted in
short or long period orbits. It is not possible to estimate the
probability of impact for comets with parabolic orbits. but the
probability is small based on the number of comets known to have
parabolic orbits. Meteoroids (Table 3) <#Table 3>, the mechanism most
commonly invoked to explain the Carolina Bays (Melton and Schriever,
1933; Melton, 1934, 1950; Prouty, 1952; and Wells and Boyce, 1953;
consist of three types but have orbital characteristics similar to
those of either asteroids or comets. Those meteoroids which create
meteor showers but produce no finds are believed to be the remains of
degenerate short period comets. Although they may be large in numbers
with observed rates of 50 per hour, their mass is insufficient to
survive atmospheric passage. Sporadic meteoroids which can survive
atmospheric passage as stones or irons are probably fragments of
asteroids, and fireballs, the remaining class, may be nuclei of small
comets. Meteoroids are the least regular in physical character and
origin of the three extraterrestrial alternatives, yet they have been
hypothesized as the extraterrestrial causal mechanism responsible for
the formation of the Carolina Bays. The authors strongly believe that
meteoroids are the least likely among the extraterrestrial
alternatives. Although the shower hypothesis (Melton and Schriever,
1933; Melton, 1934, 1950; Prouty, 1952; and Wells and Boyce, 1953) may
account for a sufficient number of objects to form half a million
bays, it is doubtful that there was sufficient mass to survive
atmospheric passage. No finds have been recorded from the meteoroid
streams and swarms which are responsible for meteor showers. The
larger sporadic meteoroids which probably originated as asteroidal
fragments may survive passage through the atmosphere, as attested to
by the number of finds. Although they may travel in small groups or
may break up into several dozen pieces in the atmosphere, it is
unlikely that they existed in sufficient numbers to create half a
million Carolina bays. In addition, the orbits of the sporadic
meteoroids suggests that their impact on Earth is an individual random
process very unlike the impingement of the shower meteoroids. Only two
classes of extraterrestrial alternatives remain. Based solely upon the
characteristics previously discussed, Carolina Bays could be the
result of either prograde asteroidal bodies perturbed out of orbit, or
they could have been formed by collision with a relatively young comet
nucleus moving either in prograde or retrograde motion. The
probabilities of collision with a retrograde object are somewhat
higher than the prograde or directly moving object, because an object
perturbed out of a direct orbit will, when crossing planetary orbits,
spend more time in the vicinity of the planets which are moving in the
same general direction as the perturbed body. Further perturbations
are likely and the object will most probably end up in orbit about the
sun.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- VELOCITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- In addition to the previous physical and orbital characteristics, a
discussion of the impact velocities on Earth is necessary to complete
the picture. The minimum and maximum velocity range is easy to
determine. Prograde motion, objects which just barely "catch up" to
the Earth, will result in impacts on the surface of the Earth at
escape velocity (~11km/sec). This is the minimum velocity expected for
any impacting body. Objects which have come from the farthest reaches
of our solar system may reasonably be expected to have velocities near
the escape velocity of the solar system (~2km/sec). If the object
exhibits retrograde motion, the impact velocity on Earth will be
additive, equal to the velocity of that body plus the velocity of the
Earth as it moves in orbit about the sun (30km/sec). For objects such
as comets which have retrograde motion, a parabolic orbit and
velocities near the escape velocity of the solar system, the maximum
impact velocity would then be 30 + 42 = 72km/sec. A comet with a
prograde orbit would then impact at 42 - 30 = 12km/sec. Meteoroids
would impact at velocities ranging from the minimum (11km/sec) to a
maximum (72km/sec). This range is confirmed by observation of meteor
velocities. A reasonable impact value for asteroids perturbed out of
orbit in direct motion is 16km/sec.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- *TABLE 1: ASTEROIDAL CHARACTERISTICS* *Characteristic*
*Descriptions* Size - Frequency Diameter (miles) Frequency > 200 3 100
- 200 15 50 - 100 50 25-50 400 12.5-25 2500 < 12.5 > 1000 Orbits
location dominantly between Mars and Jupiter motion direct inclination
typically up to 30^o eccentricities range is .1 to .3 Physical
Attributes shape most small asteroids have elongated or irregular
shapes material colorimetric observations indicate material properties
similar to the moon other polametric studies indicate intricate
micro-fracturing and possible dust mantles Possible Origin The
planetessimal forming process was interrupted from perturbations by
the planet Jupiter. The larger asteroids are thought to be remainders
of the original planetessimals. Smaller asteroids are the fragmented
remains of earlier collisions. /after Wyatt, 1966; Hartmann, l973/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- *TABLE 2: COMET CHARACTERISTICS* *Characteristic* *Descriptions*
Orbit - Frequency Short Period Long Period total observations 94 472
prograde # 87 227 retrograde # 7 245 typical inclination 15^o random
typical orbit elliptical 290 (parabolic)-182 (elliptical) aphelion 5
A.U. infinity for parabolic orbits up to 2 light years for ellipses
Physical Attributes (Nucleus) density 1 . 00 - 1 . 3g/cm^3 mass 10^15
- 10^19 g diameter < 1 - 10 km composition OH, [OI], CH, CH2, NH, NH2,
CN, C2, C3, H2O (spectrophotometer mission bands) Possible Origin
Comets may be the result of planetessimal formations at the outer edge
of the solar system which were perturbed out of the solar system by
the gas giant planets. The residing location of comets is called Oorts
cloud, a reservoir of cometary material from which a comet by chance
is perturbed towards the sun. Some of these comets may undergo further
perturbation by Jupiter and become short Period comets. /after
Hawkins, 1964; Wyatt, 1966; and Hartmann, 1973./
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- *TABLE 3: METEOROID CHARACTERISTICS* *Characteristic*
*Descriptions* Types Sporadic Shower Fireball meteorites are possible
meteors only low velocity have inclinations from 0 - 30^o ; with
aphelions under 5 A.U. prograde orbits either prograde or retrograde
orbits high velocity have higher inclinations and much greater
aphelions aphelion near asteroid belt aphelions range up to 100's A.U.
Physical Attributes density type 1.0g/cm^3 shower 1.0g/cm_3 to
8.0g/cm^3 sporadic meteorites .4g/cm^3 to 1.2g/cm^3 fireballs
Meteoritic Finds class frequency stones (Aerolites) 92.8% stony-irons
(Siderolites) 1.5% irons (Siderites) 5.7% 
Possible Origin Most shower
meteors are thought to be the non-volatile remains of degenerate short
period comets. Meteorites are probably asteroidal fragments while
fireballs are most likely to be small cometary nuclei or fragments of
a cometary nucleus. /after Hartmann, 1973./
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- IMPACT MECHANICS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- If the Carolina Bays are the result of impact of a fragmenting
comet or asteroid, aspects of impact mechanics may lead to further
conclusions concerning the likelihood of such an event. The basis for
these impact studies are found in the energy relationships for
terrestrial craters, both from impact and from nuclear explosion, and
are well documented by Baldwin (1963). The results of these
experiments can be stated as a simple cube scaling law where crater
diameters are proportional to the cube root of the energy of the
explosion. (*) For one such explosion (Teapot-Ess) a 300 foot crater
was produced by a 1.2 kiloton nuclear device. The relationship for
this blast is: D = kW^l/3 (equation 1) where: D = diameter of the
crater in feet k = proportionality constant W = energy of blast in
ergs (1 ton TNT = 4.16 X 10^16 ) Solving for the proportionality
constant: 3______________________ 300' = k \/(1.2 X 10^3 )(4.16 X
10^16 ) k = 8.1 X 10^-5 (*) More exact relationships can be found
using exponents other than 3.00 (Baldwin, 1963). The authors feel,
however, that simple cube scaling will suffice for a first
approximation. This relationship (D = 8.1 X 10 5 X W 1/3) has been
used for impact craters and for craters produced by other nuclear
devices and appears to be legitimate. This expression, then, can be
applied to the Carolina Bays to determine the size of object necessary
to produce one average bay and the size of object required to produce
all bays, assuming fragmentation. The energy, W, can be calculated by
assuming all the kinetic energy to be available for the blast. The
cube scaling law then becomes: D = k(l/2MV^2 )^1/3 (equation 2) where:
1/2MV^2 = kinetic energy. If assumptions are made concerning the
velocity of impact (V) needed to form a particular size crater (D),
then the mass can be determined from equation 2 or rewriting as 3:
2D^3 / M = / (equation 3) / k^3 v^2 Further assumptions can be made as
to the density of the material, and the size of the object represented
as a sphere can be determined from equation 4 shown below: 1.5D^3 / R
= / / p(3.141..)k^3 v^2 where: D = diameter of crater in feet p =
density of impacting material g/cm^3 k = proportionality constant of
cube scaling F = velocity of impacting body in cm/sec. This model was
used to determine the size of a single fragment necessary to create a
Carolina Bay one-half mile in diameter and the original dimensions of
the body needed to create 500,000 bays of the same size. This was done
as a small computer program (Appendix A) in which different
velocities, densities, exponents and proportionality constants for
cube scaling could be changed. The results for impacting asteroids and
comets are shown in (Table 4) <#Table 4>. Only the values from the
computer output for the upper and lower limits of the impact velocity
are included. The resulting size range appears to fit the range of
expected diameters for either comets or asteroids. 

*TABLE 4: IMPACT
MECHANICS (1) FOR HIGH AND LOW VELOCITY ASTEROIDS AND COMETS*
*Impacting Body* *Impact mps* *Velocity (km/sec)* *Density g/cm*^*3*
*Single Mass lbs (kgm)* *Fragment Diameter (2) ft (m)* *Entire Mass T
(MT)* *Body Diameter (3) mile (km)* Asteroid 7 (11) 3.00 .118X10^6
(.536X10^8 ) 106.4 (32.43) .608X10^10 (.268X10^10 ) 1.6 (2.57)
Asteroid 10 (16) 3.00 .579X10^5 (.263X10^8 ) 83.89 (25.57) .298X10^10
(.131X10^11 ) 1.26 (2.03) Comet 7 (11) 1.30 .118X10^6 (.536X10^8 )
140.6 (42.86) .608X10^10 (.649X10^9 ) 2.1 (3.4) Comet 45 (72) 1.30
.286X10^4 (.130X10^7 ) 40.67 (12.40) .147X10^9 (.268X10^11 ) .61 (.98)
/(1) Cube scaling = 3.00, energy available for impact = 100% (2) Mean
diameter of crater - 2640.0 ft (1/2 mile) (3) Total number craters -
500,000/
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Other constraints on the fall and impact process can restrict the
model. A limit can be set on the mass of an object which will pass
through the Earth's atmosphere without retardation of velocity.
Objects with masses of one ton or less will be decelerated until the
original impact velocity has reached zero and the object will continue
to fall at terminal velocity in the atmosphere. Objects greater than
1000 tons will not significantly decrease in velocity (Hawkins, 1964,
p. 90-91). 

Further complications exist if the body breaks into
fragments as required for bay formation. The mass of the objects
(Table 4) <#Table 4> are appreciably greater than 1000 tons and will,
on entering the atmosphere, maintain their original approach velocity.
After fragmenting, the individual particles range in size from
approximately one ton for a fast moving comet to fifty tons for a slow
moving asteroid. If fragmentation occurs at a fairly high altitude,
then considerable deceleration and loss of mass through ablation will
probably occur. Fragmentation at lower altitudes would reduce ablation
and deceleration considerably. Both instantaneous and continual
fragmentation has been observed in meteor falls. It is expected that
the higher velocity objects impinging on the Earth's atmosphere are
more apt to break up (Hartmann, 1973, p. 180). Although the
characteristics of fragmentation favors a cometary impact, the general
impact model appears to satisfy the requirements for either a comet or
an asteroid collision. Examination of the morphometric characteristics
of the Carolina Bays may permit further differentiation as to the
possible source of the impacting body.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- CRATER MORPHOMETRY AND THE CAROLINA BAYS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The majority of lunar craters and known terrestrial cryptoexplosion
features such as Gosses Bluff, Australia (Milton and others, 1972),
and the Arizona Meteorite Crater are commonly recognized as impact
structures. Such features, similar in form to craters produced by
chemical or nuclear devices, result from the release of energy at or
below ground level caused by impact of a rapidly moving mass. These
energies override the chemical bonds in the rock, causing severe
deformation and brecciation plus formation of high-density Si02
polymorphs and shattercones (Baldwin, 1965). If the velocity of the
mass is sufficient (over 6 miles per second), the impact results in a
violent explosion, vaporizing some or all of the impacting particles.
Because impact craters are analogous to chemical and nuclear
explosions, much crater research has concentrated on these more
readily available, if smaller sized forms (see Baldwin, 1963; 1965).

Various morphometric crater characteristics have a fundamental
relationship--expected logarithmic relationships between crater depth
(D) and crater diameter (d), between rim height (RH) and diameter, and
between crater rim width (RW) and diameter. Impact craters ranging
from several inches to hundreds of miles in diameter are plotted in
Figure 3a <#Fig3a>. While Baldwin plotted both cubic and linear
solutions, the shallow cubic relationship deviated only slightly from
the linear solution (Baldwin, 1965, p. 68-72). Therefore, only the
straight line approximations are included in Figure 3a. For a Carolina
Bay with a major axis of one mile to be regarded as an impact crater,
the expected depth should be approximately 1,000 feet, the rim height
150 feet and the rim width 1,000 feet. There are few field data
available on the depths of Carolina Bays. However, from descriptions
of bays with a major axis of approximately one mile, the depth is less
than 1,000 feet by several orders of magnitude. 

Actual measured data
on any aspect or Carolina Bay morphometry are scarce. Measurements are
confined to rim heights and rim widths for nine bays (Prouty, 1952, p.
179-183) with bay length determined either from Prouty's text of
U.S.G.S. topographic maps (Table 5) <#Table 5>. Those bays such as
Junkyard and St. Luke's Church, which are close to one mile in length
along the major axis, have rim heights of less than ten feet, whereas
the expected rim heights derived from Baldwin approximate 150 feet.

The rim widths, on the other hand, are somewhat closer to the expected
values. Baldwin's model predicted widths of almost 1,000 feet whereas
Junkyard has a mean rim width of 575 feet and St. Luke's Church has a
mean rim width of 300 feet. According to Prouty (1952, p. 183), the
maximum rim width for Junkyard Bay is 1,200 feet, whereas the maximum
cited rim width for St. Luke's Church Bay is only 350 feet. In both
cases the maximum rim widths occur at the southeast end of the bays
where rims tend to be best developed. Observed rim width maxima
sometimes exceed and sometimes do not approach the predicted rim
widths from Baldwin's model. Part of this variation may represent
field measurement error: the rim heights are low, the rim width slopes
are quite gentle, and the outside perimeter of the rim is irregular,
almost scalloped, causing wide fluctuations in rim widths over short
distances. 

*TABLE 5: BAY MORPHOMETRY* *Bay Name* *Location* *x RH
(feet)* *x RW (feet)* *Major Axis (feet)* Lake Waccamaw Columbus Co.,
N.C. 23.0 2000 32,366 Junkyard Clarendon Co., S.C. 7.4 575 6,660 Polk
Swamp Orangeburg Co., S.C. 7.4 378 13,590 St. Luke's Church S.C.
(county unknown) 5.25 300 6,300 Grassy Allendale Co., S.C. 5.25 272
7,286 Big Horsepen S.C. (county unknown) 7.25 525 7,804 Bowman
(location unknown) 6.0 750 10,230 Little Sister Marion Co., S.C. 4.5
350 10,560 Swallow Savanna Allendale Co., S.C. 7.8 523 3,150 /after
Prouty, 1952, pp. 179-183/ Carolina Bays do not even closely
approximate impact crater morphometric characteristics. 

The rim widths
appear to be the only measure which even falls within the range
predicted by the impact model. In an attempt to examine this
phenomenon, a curve relating rim height and rim width was derived from
Baldwin's curves and the values for the bays in Table 5 <#Table 5>
were plotted (Figure 3b) <#Fig3b>. For an impact crater to have a rim
height of 7.5 feet, it should have a rim width of 100 feet. Junkyard
Bay has a mean rim width of 575 feet with a mean rim height of only
7.4 feet. In all nine bays, rim width is considerably greater with
respect to rim height than the model predicts. As impact structures,
the Carolina Bays exhibit crater depths that are much too shallow for
their diameter, rim heights that are too low for their diameter, and
rim widths that are too narrow for their diameter. The rim widths are
considerably wider than is expected with respect to the actual rim
heights. Clearly, the bays are not impact phenomena of the type that
created the lunar and terrestrial craters. Additional terrestrial
Carolina Bay characteristics such as the absence of coesite and
stishovite (Si0_2 polymorphs), the lack of any meteorites genetically
related to bays, and the elliptical, rather than circular form of the
bays, also do not support any traditional type of extraterrestrial
impact bay formation model.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- A COMET AS THE BAY FORMING MECHANISM *
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- One other aspect peculiar to comets may be important to the genesis
of the Carolina Bays. Because of the volatile content in a comet
nucleus, a collision trajectory may not result in actual impact.
Observations of meteors and fireballs indicate that some of these
objects break up as they enter the Earth's atmosphere and sometimes
explode in the air. The 1908 Tunguska fall in Siberia is commonly
regarded as the explosion of a very small comet nucleus. Hartmann
(1973, p. 146) said that the explosion, estimated to be 10^21 to 10^23
ergs, knocked a man off his porch 38 miles away. Trees as much as nine
miles from the impact site were felled radially outward by the shock
wave, whereas trees at ground zero were merely denuded of their
branches and left in growth position. Baldwin (1963, p. 37) added that
trees in protected locations such as deep valleys remained standing
and in some cases were still alive. 

According to Hartmann ( p. 146),
by 1928 when trained observers first visited the site, they found the
impact site to be pockmarked with a series of shallow, funnel-shaped
depressions of variable width but not more than four or five meters in
depth. No meteorites were discovered. 

Baldwin (1963, p. 37) noted that
in 1928 the original forest vegetation was replaced with tundra except
in the craters where swampy vegetation was already well established
Hartmann (1973, pp. 146-147) summarized the evidence supporting a
cometary origin for the 1908 fall: 

1. The object evidently exploded in
the air, since trees at "ground zero" stood upright but were stripped
of branches. A loosely consolidated ice comet nucleus would be
expected to volatilize and explode before it hit the ground. 

2. The
lack of meteorite fragments is consistent with our picture of a
predominantly icy nucleus. 

3. A 1961 expedition recovered soil samples
that contained small spherules believed to be part of the object. The
spherules would be consistent with the idea of an admixture of small
grains of non-icy "dirt" in the dirty iceberg and their spherical
shape could be the result of sudden melting during the explosion. 

4.
Observations of the motion of the object across the sky indicated that
it was traveling toward the earth probably in retrograde motion at a
very high velocity, perhaps 50 km/sec, which would be typical of a
comet but not of ordinary meteorites. . 

5. For weeks afterward, the
night sky in Europe and Russia was anomalously bright. This may have
been due in part to atmospheric interaction with tail and coma
material (although the comet was too small to have been noticed prior
to the collision, being on the order 10^1 g to 10^11 g in mass instead
of about 10^18 g, typical of observed comets). 

Multiple shallow
craters of variable widths, a climax vegetation destroyed except where
topographically protected, the absence of meteoritic finds, a high
velocity but low angle trajectory, plus a shock wave felt at least 38
miles and heard 620 miles from the impact site suggest a cometary
explosion before actual impact. Hartmann stated that the Tunguska fall
was a small comet nucleus. If such a singular event happened once, it
could happen at least once more. *While a heading in the article
concerning the original extraterrestrial hypothesis mentions the
possibility of a cometary impact (Melton and Schriever, 1933, p. 63),
the article never explores such a mechanism as an alternative to
meteoritic showers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- AVAILABLE COMETARY ENERGY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- In a discussion of the energies needed to produce craters by
nuclear explosions, Baldwin (1963, pp. 41-42) indicated that: As the
transition is made from an air burst to a surface burst to a
subsurface burst, the energies which go to produce the crater become
an increasing percentage of the total energy and the attenuation of
the shock waves in the air becomes marked. The maximum blast effect of
a 20 KT bomb are greatest for a height of air-burst of about 1,850
feet. Baldwin reports that calculations of the energy in the Tunguska
air blast could be the equivalent of a 23.9 KT bomb. In an attempt to
see how a reduction of energy because of an air blast would affect the
impact model, we re-ran the model using decreasing amounts of energy
available for impact (Figure 4) <#Fig4>. The diameter for the comet
nucleus is within an acceptable range of sizes of available cometary
material. Impact of a shock wave caused by an air blast has
considerable portent for structure of the bays. The shock wave would
be extended for the duration of time each particle volatized and
exploded. This could account for the elliptical structure of the bays.
The elliptical structure would also be more pronounced if the
trajectory of the comet as it approached the earth's surface was low.
We have not been able to ascertain what the specific shape of the
Tunguska craters were. Presumably , since descriptions refer to
diameters, the depressions are probably rounded or sub-rounded rather
than elliptical. However, the Campo del Cielo meteorite which
fragmented in the atmosphere over Chile and Argentina produced
individual craters which are elliptical to sub-rounded (Cassidy and
others, 1965, p. 1058), so ellipticity, per se, cannot rule out an
extraterrestrial origin as was suggested by Price (1968, p. 104). A
shallow trajectory and air blast could also account for the apparent
piling up of material on the southeast rims of the bays. Although a
fairly speculative model at present, there is the precedence of the
Tunguska fall. Further support can be found in the orientation of the
bays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- BAY ORIENTATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Many scholars (Melton and Schriever, 1933; Johnson, 1942; Prouty,
1952; Price, 1968; and Thom, 1970) have variously interpreted the
northwest-southeast orientation of the major axes of the bays. Melton
and Schriever (p. 63) said that the alignment is and should be
parallel, because bays formed by a meteoritic shower of particles were
on a common trajectory. Johnson, using mean orientation of 75 bays
scattered from North Carolina to Georgia, said that the azimuthal
standard deviation was too large for alignment to be a significant bay
attribute. Later, when Prouty measured the orientation of Carolina
Bays, he recognized a radial alignment with southern locations having
orientations slightly west of north and northerly bays oriented almost
due west. We measured the azimuths of a 358 bay sample including
fourteen counties from Georgia north to Virginia (Table 6) 

<#Table 6>.
The mean azimuths vary from 344.2^o in southern South Carolina and
342.6^o in southern Georgia to a mean azimuth of 294.9^o in Virginia.

In general these results appear to verify those of Prouty who stated
that there was a systematic latitudinal variation in orientation.
Systematic locational variation may have led Johnson to conclude that
the overall standard deviation was too large to be meaningful. While
our mean azimuth (342.6^o ) for Atkinson County, Georgia, is similar
to Prouty's 345^o for the same county, measurement error is a very
real possibility. Measuring the precise orientation of an ellipse
where overlap occurs is difficult. Although we omitted bays where we
thought the orientation was too indistinct, some subjectivity in the
actual alignment certainly occurred. Relatively small sample sizes,
particularly in counties with wide azimuthal fluctuations, also
affects the results. Nonetheless, a wide scatter in bay orientations
in a localized area has a possible significance. 

*TABLE 6: CAROLINA
BAY ORIENTATION* State County Number Measured Bays x Azimuth S/x +/-1
S/x in Degrees Ga. Atkinson 27 342.6^o 16.5 359.1 - 326.1 S.C.
Allendale 10 341.4^o 7.8 349.2 - 333.6 S.C. Barnwell 30 344.2^o 5.1
349.3 - 339.1 S.C. Florence 2* 322.0^o --- ------------- S.C.
Georgetown 9 328.4^o 6.5 334.9 - 321.9 S.C. Horry 38 312.3^o 6.1 318.4
- 306.2 S.C. Lee 2* 319.5^o --- ------------- S.C. Marion 8 316.5^o
6.7 323.2 - 309.8 S.C. Sumter 3* 342.0^o --- ------------- N.C. Bladen
98 311.4^o 4.7 316.1 - 306.7 N.C. Carteret 9 300.4^o 6.3 306.7 - 294.1
N.C. Cumberland 15 311.6^o 8.5 320.1 - 303.1 N.C. Robeson 90 311.2^o
5.8 317.0 - 305.4 Va. Powhatan 17 294.9^o 20.3 315.2 - 274.6 /*Sample
size too small/ 

The mean azimuths for the fourteen sample counties are
plotted on Figure 5 <#Fig5>. They display radial alignment, but more
significantly, they have an apparent focus in either southern Ohio or
Indiana which indicates the possibility of a point source. Other than
measurement errors, variations in mean orientation per county may
indicate localized effects or not quite simultaneous explosions and
the resulting shock waves. The azimuths tend to support the
possibility of a cometary bay forming mechanism. In addition to the
radial orientation, Table 6 <#Table 6> also indicates that certain
counties, notably those furthest south and north, have much larger
standard deviations than the counties in southern North Carolina and
northern South Carolina. Some of this variation represents county
sample sizes, because the counties with the smallest standard
deviations are also the counties with the largest number of samples.
Certainly, some portion of the markedly increased variation actually
represents an increasingly divergent localized bay alignment. If a
comet nucleus on a low angle northwest trajectory was either
fragmented or continuously fragmented as it approached the Earth, some
fragments would be deflected further from the actual incoming
trajectory. Continued ablation and further fragmentation of each
segment of the nucleus, plus the effects of not quite simultaneous air
blasts may account for the divergent azimuths in the sampled counties.
Thus, bays furthest from the main trajectory could be expected to have
much larger azimuthal standard deviations. Following the same logic,
Bladen County, North Carolina, with the smallest standard deviation
appears to be directly on the collision trajectory. The increased
variation away from the main trajectory may also account for the
manner in which bays overlap. Bays in Cumberland County, adjacent to
the inferred impact trajectory, tend to overlap either lengthwise
along major axes or in complex clusters of as many as fourteen bays
superposed in one area. Since Cumberland County is so near to the
proposed collision trajectory, the complex bays and chains of bays may
represent a rapid series of explosions and shock waves generated from
further fragmentation of the remaining nucleus. Lengthwise overlap
along the main trajectory is to be expected because of the smaller
variation in the dispersion of fragments. Where fragment dispersion is
the greatest, less overlap should occur and bays should either be
single or overlap along minor axes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS OF A COMETARY MODEL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- We have eliminated all but one of the extraterrestrial Carolina Bay
forming possibilities on the basis of availability, orbital
characteristics, physical attributes, and impact morphometry. We
further refined the remaining possibility by suggesting that a bay
forming comet did not need to be large to form half a million bays.
However, it must have been volatile; it must have followed a flat
northwest trajectory because rims are better developed in the
southeast quadrant, and it must have been fragmented somewhere to the
northwest and eventually explode near the surface but in the
atmosphere. The physics of such a series of catastrophic atmospheric
explosions added to impact velocities at possibly greater than 51
km/sec are very complex. To the best of our knowledge no one has
speculated about the nature of, or the bay forming energies available
with, such shock waves. Nor since 1936 (MacCarthy) has anyone
speculated about the relationship between shock waves and Carolina Bay
morphology. These two avenues of research are needed before a cometary
bay forming mechanism could be widely accepted. As happened when
aerial photographs of Carolina Bays were first seen (Melton and
Schriever, 1933), we were immediately struck by the too remarkable
regularity and uniformity with which bay morphology repeated itself.
As physical geographers we doubted that either simple or complex sets
of terrestrial mechanisms could conspire to create exceedingly regular
forms on one portion of the Atlantic Coastal Plain without forming
similar and equally widespread features elsewhere in similar coastal
environments. It seemed to us that either the area is unique or the
causal mechanism is not terrestrial. Furthermore, if the cause is not
terrestrial, it almost certainly was a comet. Neither the impact of a
large asteroid nor the splash effects of a meteoritic shower could
form Carolina Bays. This section, then, represents pure speculation
about some of the terrestrial constraints concerned with such a unique
event and suggests possible directions whereby this model can be
tested. If Carolina Bays represent residual scars of a truly singular
extraterrestrial event, the bays must be young--an attribute accepted
by many terrestrial theorists as well. For example, Price (1968)
indicated one or more periods of late Pleistocene bay development,
whereas Thom (1970) indicated either a Farmdalian (28,000 - 22,000
B.P.) or a Woodfordian (22,000 - 12,500 B.P.) age. Age is a more
critical factor when an extraterrestrial mechanism is invoked. Bays
formed virtually instantaneously by explosions of cometary fragments
are residual features. Subsequent modifications of such scars by
normal terrestrial processes would rapidly obliterate all traces in
unconsolidated sediments such as the Coastal Plain. Study of bays in
Figure 2 suggests that bays remain quite distinct, essentially
unaltered except for infilling; thus, the bays must be quite
young--either late Wisconsinan or early Holocene. Very few samples of
buried peat in the bays have been dated. Thom (1970) had a 6600 B.P.
radiocarbon date from the basal peat in one South Carolina bay
although he cited a greater than 38,000 B.P. date from the basal peat
in a North Carolina bay. It is difficult to equate the two results.
The bays may be Wisconsinan in age. On the other hand, anomalous dates
do occur, so little reliance can be placed on the few dates which have
been acquired. Sequential samples along a vertical profile in several
bays need to be dated and at least one date from the basal organic
fill in a large sample of bays should be taken. Such a dating program
will permit the Carolina Bays to be more precisely defined in time,
and, more particularly, may indicate the possibility of simultaneous
origin. As was indicated earlier in the description of the Tunguska
site, the vegetation in the area at the time the Carolina Bays formed
may have been severely stressed by the shock waves from exploding
cometary fragments. The larger vegetation would have been destroyed
over sizable areas such as Bladen County, North Carolina, where well
over half of the entire area is covered by bays. If such a shock
occurred, perhaps a record of the event might be preserved by the
pollen rain into the newly formed depressions. Assuming a rapid
sequence of successional plants until equilibrium was restored, the
basal organic fill in the bays might be one avenue by which a cometary
origin could be tested. When the shallow Campo del Cielo craters were
examined (Cassidy and other, 1965), the authors found a modern soil
developed in crater ejecta with a pre-impact soil buried beneath the
debris. Search for such a compound soil profile beneath bay rims is an
additional research possibility which might support an
extraterrestrial model. The problem is compounded because certain
soils in the area have thick, residual, light-colored, silica sand
concentrations in their A2 horizons (Johnson, personal communication).
Such a sand is an almost sterile end product of weathering. It would
not weather significantly more, even if it were to be displaced up to
the surface. This may be one reason why rim sands stand out so
distinctly on aerial photographs even though the form is low and
relatively indistinct on the ground. Other than the physics of an
unconfined near surface air blast, the single most critical problem
for the extraterrestrial model suggested in this paper concerns the
apparent selectivity of bay locations. Known extraterrestrial impact
craters are randomly distributed with respect to geology. Known
Carolina Bays are not. Until recently, when Goodwin and Johnson (1970)
described bays in fluvial sands and gravels on the Piedmont in
Virginia, all bays were believed to be confined to the Coastal Plain
and better developed in sandy environments than in clay-rich ones
(Whitehead and Tan, 1969; Thom, 1970). Some of the sandy areas where
bays occur are Pleistocene river terraces, others are in dune
complexes, still others are associated with marine terraces of
different ages. If cometary fragments exploded, the displacement depth
would depend in part on the cohesiveness of the unconsolidated
surficial sediments. Although the analogy from a bomb crater to a bay
is not direct, Baldwin (1963, p. 183) said that a sandy loam texture
yielded larger bomb craters than a clay-rich texture for an equal
expenditure of energy. Depressions created in clay-rich soils would be
smaller, more shallow, and far less easy to recognize on aerial
photographs. Assuming Piedmont bays exist, current methods in remote
sensing may detect bays which cannot be recognized on conventional
black and white photographs. Many excellent descriptions of bay
morphology exist although explanations of the attributes differ.
Therefore, throughout this section we have concentrated on
non-traditional approaches to Carolina Bays and the possible
relationships between the diverse approaches and an extraterrestrial
causal mechanism. Bay morphology is also important. Various
morphologic characteristics have been used in both supporting and
refuting earlier extraterrestrial models. We can add little that is
new in this regard except to note that cometary explosions in the
atmosphere would not distort the underlying strata in the process of
creating shallow depressions, nor would shock waves leave residual
traces which could be identified in the mineralogy of the bays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- CONCLUSION
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The proposed model with shock waves from cometary fragments
exploding above the surface creating a series of similar landforms is
conceptually very simple, and is far less complex than most of the
terrestrial models postulated recently. For geometrically regular
forms such as Carolina Bays we prefer a simple causal mechanism if it
is feasible. Examination of impact mechanics and Carolina Bay
morphometry eliminates traditional impact phenomena resulting from
meteoroid swarms or asteroids. However, the unique orbital and
physical characteristics of a comet favor a model in which a high
velocity retrograde comet or a low velocity prograde comet collided
with the Earth. The incoming nucleus approached from the northwest and
fragmented. The fragments, diverging from the main trajectory,
volatized and subsequently exploded in the atmosphere near the
surface. The resultant shock waves created shallow elliptical
depressions which are best displayed in the sandy sediments of the
Coastal Plain. This model is not fully substantiated. But, given the
terrestrial and extraterrestrial constraints used in this paper, a
comet remains a viable alternative worthy of further consideration. We
hope that the physics of such an event can be explored, and that these
results support our contention. We believe that a multidirected
research effort will eventually result in a consensus about a truly
enigmatic set of landforms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- BIBLIOGRAPHY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Baldwin, R. B., 1963. The Measure of the Moon. Chicago: The
University. of Chicago Press. Baldwin, R. B., 1965. A Fundamental
Survey of the Moon. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Carson, C. E.,
and
Hussey, K. M., 1962. The Oriented Lakes of Arctic Alaska, Journal of
Geology, vol. 70, pp. 417-439. Cassidy, W. A., and others, 1965.
Meteorites and Craters of Campo del Cielo, Argentina, Science, vol.
149, pp. 1055-1064. Cooke, C. W., 1934. Discussion of the Origin of
the Supposed Meteorite Scars of South Carolina, Journal of Geology,
vol. 42, pp. 89-96. Cooke, C. W., 1940. Elliptical Bays in South
Carolina and the Shape of Eddies, Journal of Geology, vol. 48, pp.
205-211. Cooke, C. W., 1954. Carolina Bays and the Shapes of Eddies.
United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 254-l. Daniels, R.
B., and Gamble, E. E., 1971. Stability of Coastal Plain Surfaces,
Southeastern Geology, vol. 13, pp. 61-75. Doering, J., 1960.
Quaternary Surface Formations of Southern Part of Atlantic Coastal
Plain, Journal of Geology, vol. 68, pp. 182-202. Frey, D., 1951.
Pollen Succession in the Sediments of Singletary Lake, North Carolina,
Ecology, vol. 32, pp. 518-533. Frey, D., 1954. Evidence of the Recent
Enlargement of the "Bay" Lakes of North Carolina, Ecology, vol. 35,
pp. 78-88. Glenn, L. C., 1895. Some Notes on Darlington, South
Carolina Bays, Science, vol. 2, pp. 472-475. Goodwin, B. K., and
Johnson, G. H., 1970 . Geology of the Upland Gravels near Midlothian,
Virginia, 11th Annual Field Conference Atlantic Coastal Plain
Geological Association Guidebook, pp. 1-35. Grant, C., 1945. A
Biological Explanation of the Carolina Bays, Science Monthly, vol. 61,
pp. 443-450. 

Hartmann, W. K., 1973. Moons and Planets: An Introduction
to Planetary Science. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co.,
Inc. Hawkins, G. S., 1964. The Physics and Astronomy of Meteorites.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Johnson, D. W., 1936. Origin of the
Supposed Meteorite Scars of Carolina, Science, vol. 48, pp. 15-18.
Johnson, D. W., 1942. The Origin of the Carolina Bays. New York:
Columbia University Press. Johnson, G. H., and Goodwin, B. K., 1967.
Elliptical Depressions on Undissected Highland Gravels in Northern
Chesterfield County, Virginia [Abstract], Virginia Journal of Science,
vol. 18, p. 186. Johnson, H. S., and Du Bar, J. R., 1964. Geomorphic
Elements of the Area between the Cape Fear and Pee Dee Rivers, North
and South Carolina, Southeastern Geology, vol. 6, pp. 37-47. Jones, V.
L., 1956. Discussion of 'Were the Carolina Bays Oriented by Gyroscopic
Action? by W. Schriever', Transactions, American Geophysical Union,
vol. 37, pp. 112-117. Krivov, E. L., 1966. Giant Meteorites. New York:
Permagon Press. LeGrand, H. E., 1953. Streamlining of the Carolina
Bays, Journal of Geology, vol. 61, pp. 263-274. Lobeck, A. K., 1939.
Geomorphology: An Introduction to the Study of Landscapes. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co. MacCarthy, G. R., 1937. The Carolina Bays,
Bulletin, Geological Society of America, vol. 48. PP. 1211-1225.
Melton, F. A., 1934. Reply to Cooke (1934), Journal of Geology, vol.
42, PP. 97-104. Melton, F. A., 1950. The Carolina Bays, Journal of
Geology, vol. 58, pp. 128-134. Melton, F. A., and Schriever, W., 1933.
The Carolina Bays - Are They Meteorite Scars?, Journal of Geology,
vol. 41, pp. 52-66. Milton, D. J., and others, 1972. Gosses Bluff
Impact Structure, Australia, Science, vol. 175, pp. 1199-1207.
Preston, C. D., and Brown, C. Q., 1964. Geologic Section along a
Carolina Bay, Sumter County, S. C., Southeastern Geology, vol. 6, pp.
21-29. Price, W. A., 1951. Wind Caused Pattern, Science News-Letter,
p. 327. Price, W. A., 1958. Sedimentology and Quaternary Geomorphology
of South Texas,Transactions, Gulf Coast Association Geological
Society, vol. 8, pp. 41-75. Price, W. A., 1963. The Oriented Lakes of
Arctic Alaska: A Discussion, Journal of Geology, vol. 71, pp. 530-531.
Price, W. A., 1968. Carolina Bays, In R. W. Fairbridge (ed.), The
Encyclopedia of Geomorphology. New York: Reinhold Book Corp., pp.
102-109. Prouty, W. F., 1935. "Carolina Bays" and Elliptical Lake
Basins, Journal of Geology, vol. 43, pp. 200-207. Prouty, W. F., 1952.
Carolina Bays and their Origin, Bulletin, Geological Society of
America, vol. 63, pp. 167-224. Raisz, E. J., 1934. Rounded Lakes and
Lagoons of the Coastal Plains of Massachusetts, Journal of Geology,
vol. 42, pp. 839-848. Robertson, E. C., 1962. The Carolina Bays and
Emergence of the Coastal Plain of the Carolinas and Georgia. United
States Geological Survey Professional Paper 450-c . Schriever, W.,
1955. Were the Carolina Bays Oriented by Gyroscopic Action,
Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol. 36, DD. 46s-469.
Shockley, N. G., and others, 1956. Discussion of 'Were the Carolina
Bays Oriented by Gyroscopic Action' by William Schriever,
Transactions, American Geophysical Union, vol. 37, pp. 112-115. Thom,
B. G., 1965. Relationship of Carolina Bays to Regional Geomorphology
[Abstract], Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, pp.
172- 173. Thom, B. G., 1970. Carolina Bays in Horry and Marion
Counties, South Carolina, Bulletin, Geological Society of America,
vol. 81, pp. 783-814. Thornbury, W. D., 1965. Regional Geomorphology
of the United States. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Toumey, M.,
1848. Report on the Geology of South Carolina. Carolina State
Geological Survey. Wells, B. W., and Boyce, S. G., 1953. Carolina
Bays: Additional Data on their Origin, Age, and History, Journal, J.
Elisha Mitchell Science Society, vol. 69, pp. 119-141. Whitehead, D.
R., and Tan, K. W., 1969. Modern Vegetation and Pollen Rain in Bladen
County, North Carolina, Ecology, vol. 50, pp. 235-248. Wolfe, P. E.,
1953. Periglacial Frost-thaw Basins in New Jersey, Journal of Geology,
vol. 61, pp. 133 - 141. Wyatt, S. P., 1966. Principles of Astronomy.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Home | Carolina bay Menu /The content and opinions expressed on
this Web page do not necessarily reflect the views of nor are they
endorsed by the University of Georgia or the University System of
Georgia./