http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ mirrored file For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== *Velikovsky's version: cosmic catastrophes and the extinction of the mammoth* /In one of his books, Velikovsky attempted to explain Biblical stories using 20th century astronomy./ *(By Jay Ingram ? Feb. 24, 2000)* One of the strangest chapters in the mammoth story was written in the 1950s. Scientists have pretty much put the episode behind them, but it continues to intrigue a small fringe of mammoth-watchers. It began with Immanuel Velikovsky, a scholar and writer who entered the public eye and turned the scientific world on its head with the publication in 1950 of his book /Worlds in Collision/. In it, Velikovsky claimed that Biblical stories of manna from heaven, hails of rocks and three days of darkness (and similar accounts from other ancient texts) were factual accounts of real events. Velikovsky proposed a series of almost unbelievable events as the explanation: the planet Venus was ejected from Jupiter (the astronomical version of projectile vomiting) and came swooping through the solar system, passing close enough to the Earth around 1450 BC to create the natural disasters described in Exodus. Because Venus, as it careered through the solar system, also approached and disturbed Mars, the red planet later made its own close approach to the Earth as well. Finally the planets settled into their present orbits. /Immanuel Velikovsky/ Velikovsky had read ancient documents in detail, and presented an interesting and detailed - if unconvincing - case for his scenario. Of course there is nothing in modern astronomy that would make this series of events possible. Velikovsky's book enraged scientists who reacted in an unexpectedly aggressive way: they threatened the publisher, Macmillan, with the withdrawal of textbook business if they continued to publish /Worlds In Collision/. Macmillan knuckled under, the book was published by Doubleday instead, and went on to be a runaway best-seller. That's the very brief Velikovsky background (if you want more you can visit one of many Velikovsky web pages). But here's where the mammoths come in: in 1955 Velikovsky published /Earth in Upheaval/, a follow-up to /World In Collision/ that addressed catastrophic events that (he thought) had happened on the Earth in prehistoric times and were therefore unrecorded in written accounts. The evidence for these catastrophes had to be largely geological. Velikovsky was fascinated by the profusion of mammoth bones and tusks and even frozen bodies that had been found in Siberia and Alaska. There were three key points as far as he was concerned: one, that the existing tundra seemed totally inadequate to provide enough plant material for huge animals like mammoths to subsist on. The second point, related to the first, was that their stomachs contained the remains of plants that couldn't have grown so far north. And three, the frozen mammoths seemed to have been flash frozen. To Velikovsky, the only possible explanation was that these animals had been living in a much more temperate clime, which had suddenly - and I mean suddenly - turned ice-cold. // And here's how he explained this strange turn of events: "Let us assume, as a working hypothesis, that under the impact of a force or the influence of an agent - and the earth does not travel in an empty universe - the axis of the earth shifted or tilted. At that moment an earthquake would make the globe shudder... The shifting of the axis would also change the climate of every place, leaving corals in Newfoundland and elephants in Alaska..." So some unidentified cosmic object disturbed the Earth and one of the myriad effects was the death and preservation of mammoths in ice. Later he argues that the famous Beresovka mammoth, found with clots of blood in its chest and unswallowed grass clenched between its teeth, is a testimony to the violence and suddenness of whatever cataclysmic event caused the extinction of its species. So how well do the arguments stand up under scrutiny? Not very well. First, were the mammoths quick-frozen? No. Almost all of the frozen specimens found so far have been rotten, and in some cases, mutilated by scavengers before freezing. Even the ground around the aforementioned Beresovka mammoth, as well as the mammoth's flesh, stunk of decay. Had freezing been instantaneous, no decay would have occurred. That is why we have fridges, isn't it? // They died, not by freezing, but by asphyxiation. Evidence for that is the discovery of vessels still filled with coagulated blood and the little-known fact that the Beresovka mammoth died with an erection. Second, the stomach contents. Turns out both the Mamontova and Beresovka mammoths had eaten a variety of plants, including grasses, sedges and other tundra plants, as well as the cones and twigs of northern trees. Overall these plants represent a flora that would exist in slightly warmer and wetter conditions than exist in Siberia today, but such conditions are well within the climatic variability of the past. There are some other points that Velikovsky seems to have overlooked, one of which is that the mammoths were obviously adapted to Siberian cold. They had long hair, a woolly undercoat and a thick layer of subcutaneous fat. Finally the numbers of frozen mammoths don't support the idea of a catastrophe. It's been estimated that there might have been about 50,000 mammoths living in the Arctic, while something like forty have been found frozen. Hardly the signs of a cataclysmic event. As well, only mammoths and woolly rhinoceroses have been found frozen. Why only them and no other animals? Presumably because they were heavy and unable, if they fell, to extricate themselves from either marshy ground or snow-filled gullies. Elephants, and presumably mammoths before them, need to be balanced so precisely on their pillar-like legs that they can't cross a ditch any wider than their stride length. Most of the evidence on both sides of this argument comes from the 1950s and earlier, but you shouldn't take that as evidence that this controversy is dead. In fact there is a 303 page book published in 1997 called /The Extinction of the Mammoth/, by Charles Ginenthal that revisits the controversy. Mr. Ginenthal appears to be Velikovsky supporter, and the publication of this book shows that Velikovsky's influence on scientific discourse has not waned. Let exn.ca send this story to a friend! Load a printer-friendly version of this page Click to add your opinion <./Templates/Talkback/AddTalkback.cfm?ID=20000224-55> *What exn.ca visitors think about this story* * I have to say that first i am not a scientist, but ... <./Templates/Talkback/ReadTalkback.cfm?TalkbackID=20000224-55&MessageID=2000410204029> /clint menzies/ * Hi, There are a few points with my comments that i ... <./Templates/Talkback/ReadTalkback.cfm?TalkbackID=20000224-55&MessageID=2000329215219> /Matthew Vanderkooy/ * This arguement raises some very interesting points ... <./Templates/Talkback/ReadTalkback.cfm?TalkbackID=20000224-55&MessageID=2000340323> /Stacey Rogers/ *Tell us what you think <./Templates/Talkback/AddTalkback.cfm?ID=20000224-55>* [ archive | about us | privacy policy | terms and conditions | site map | FAQ | contact us | newsletter ] Problems or Questions? Contact Us! Copyright © 2953285 Canada Inc. Discovery Canada 2003. All Rights Reserved. Bell Globemedia