"The craters that never were: Anthropogenic origins of alleged impact structures in the Chiemgau region"

External Quote:

Public fascination with impact craters often drives bold speculations, but rigorous verification is critical. In southeastern Bavaria, numerous depressions have been proposed to represent impact craters associated with a catastrophic event in Celtic times (between 900 BC and 600 BC)—the so called "Chiemgau Impact." To date, the evidence presented in support of the proposed Chiemgau Impact has not been independently validated as diagnostic of a confirmed impact event, and this interpretation has been repeatedly challenged in the scientific literature.

External Quote:

We localized and critically examined these structures in the field as well as using publicly available high-resolution LIDAR data, aerial imagery (historic and recent), and development plans. The majority of these images show structures which are demonstrably anthropogenic, including gravel pits, WWII bomb craters, retention basins, and—most notably—golf course features such as bunkers and ponds.

External Quote:

FIGURE 5

Geographic features illustrated in Figures 3 and 4 (I3i-I3m, I4d+e, II1b, II4c) of Ernstson and Poßekel (2025) and West and Ernstson (2026), identified by those authors as impact craters, correspond to structures within a golf course (Golfclub Chieming) that today function as greens, sand bunkers, and ponds. Coordinates are given in Table 1. Background map: © Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltung (2024), data source: Geoportal Bayern www.geoportal.bayern.de.

jdog said:

though the Chiemgau guys seem really, really mad that "Wikipedia has mutated to a manipulation machine, initiated by well-known scribblers and opponents of the Chiemgau Impact who remain unrepentant to this day."

Click to expand...

jdog said:

An October 21, 2026 paper in Meteoritics and Planetary Science touches on some interesting bunk that had been presented as science at planetary science conferences and published in less-rigorous journals:

Click to expand...

External Quote:

CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis of depressions in southeastern Bavaria, which were interpreted as being of impact origin in recent publications, shows that the majority of the proposed "impact craters" are, in fact, clearly identifiable anthropogenic structures, including gravel pits, bomb craters, water retention basins, and numerous golf course features, with origins documented in historical maps, development plans, and aerial imagery. None of the examined features provide credible evidence for an impact origin, and many can be traced to specific construction phases within the last few decades. These findings are consistent with the existing evidence base, in which the proposed Chiemgau Impact has not been supported by independently verified impact evidence. The persistence of the impact-crater interpretation despite readily available contradictory evidence highlights the importance of applying systematic verification methods to exclude anthropogenic origins—such as cross-checking with historical and cartographic sources—before advancing extraordinary geological claims.

John J. said:

Thank you for that, a fun read!

The relevant paper is available in full via Wiley Online Library,
"The craters that never were: Anthropogenic origins of alleged impact structures in the Chiemgau region", Robert Huber, Hans Lauterbach, Robert Darga, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 1–12 (2026) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/maps.70255

External Quote:

CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis of depressions in southeastern Bavaria, which were interpreted as being of impact origin in recent publications, shows that the majority of the proposed "impact craters" are, in fact, clearly identifiable anthropogenic structures, including gravel pits, bomb craters, water retention basins, and numerous golf course features, with origins documented in historical maps, development plans, and aerial imagery. None of the examined features provide credible evidence for an impact origin, and many can be traced to specific construction phases within the last few decades. These findings are consistent with the existing evidence base, in which the proposed Chiemgau Impact has not been supported by independently verified impact evidence. The persistence of the impact-crater interpretation despite readily available contradictory evidence highlights the importance of applying systematic verification methods to exclude anthropogenic origins—such as cross-checking with historical and cartographic sources—before advancing extraordinary geological claims.

-Ah, to my surprise it can be downloaded as a PDF, attached below.

Click to expand...

John J. said:

Thank you for that, a fun read!

The relevant paper is available in full via Wiley Online Library,
"The craters that never were: Anthropogenic origins of alleged impact structures in the Chiemgau region", Robert Huber, Hans Lauterbach, Robert Darga, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 1–12 (2026) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/maps.70255

External Quote:

CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis of depressions in southeastern Bavaria, which were interpreted as being of impact origin in recent publications, shows that the majority of the proposed "impact craters" are, in fact, clearly identifiable anthropogenic structures, including gravel pits, bomb craters, water retention basins, and numerous golf course features, with origins documented in historical maps, development plans, and aerial imagery. None of the examined features provide credible evidence for an impact origin, and many can be traced to specific construction phases within the last few decades. These findings are consistent with the existing evidence base, in which the proposed Chiemgau Impact has not been supported by independently verified impact evidence. The persistence of the impact-crater interpretation despite readily available contradictory evidence highlights the importance of applying systematic verification methods to exclude anthropogenic origins—such as cross-checking with historical and cartographic sources—before advancing extraordinary geological claims.

-Ah, to my surprise it can be downloaded as a PDF, attached below.

Click to expand...

jdog said:

My attention to detail has cratered lately.

Click to expand...

MapperGuy said:

Have the proponents fleshed out the theory with anything more that saying 'that looks like a crater'?

Click to expand...

External Quote:

As Fig. 8 shows, the shape is far from being circular, ...

External Quote:

...but in parts, the shore matches exactly a circle. We suggest therefore that the Tüttensee was formed by the impact of a fragmented projectile similar to the irregularly shaped craters of the Kaalijarvi and Henbury meteorite crater fields. .

MapperGuy said:

Have the proponents fleshed out the theory with anything more that saying 'that looks like a crater'?

Click to expand...

External Quote:

The 60 km x 30 km impact crater field of the Chiemgau impact, discovered 20 years ago and dated to 900-600 BC, is now considered the most significant Holocene impact event of a low-altitude airburst impact worldwide, although a few opponents still postulate an ice age formation despite the extensive evidence of typical impact features. Geophysical measurements have contributed to demonstrating the impact nature with the originally most prominent 600 m-diameter impact crater of Lake Tüttensee with the latest measurements to date. All geophysical measurements together with the strict geological and mineralogical-petrographic findings, definitively rule out glacial formation. Gravimetry shows a marked increase in density in a zone around the crater wall, which is attributed to impact shock compaction. Seismics on the lake show complex structures of the crater cavity being refilled immediately after the impact. Magnetic field measurements over the ejecta rule out glacial deposition. GPR measurements show, as in a video, the development of the rim wall with its formation and changes within the short period of impact. The influence of the catastrophic impact on the settlement is revealed by geoelectric and GPR measurements of archeological features in conjunction with geological impact structures.

First Author
Kord Ernstson
Faculty of Philosophy I, University of Würzburg

Author
Jens Poßekel
Geophysik Poßekel Hornhof 14, 45479 Mülheim

External Quote:

This claim has been refuted by geological research and the finding of a soil horizon of undisturbed peat and sedimentation since the end of the last glaciation period.