Roman Mystery in Elsbach Lignite Pit or Hissink’s Heresy

Eva Hagedorn, a german scientist, studied a section of the Garzweiler Lignite mine stratigraphy and chemistry during the 1990’s and published a summary online at her website.

A captioned photograph of “Parts of the Roman Water pipeline in Profile FR126 is published, but with no comment in the text.



Figure 1

Putting this in geological context


Figure 2 – Stratigraphy



Figure 3 Longitudinal View of, one assumes, the lowest section of the crosssection


This Roman water works is not buried under colluvium, but under, ahem, Miocene stratigraphy. It’s location in the cross section seems to be wee white features above the basal orange Devonian strata. I think, because no one seems to want to discuss this anachronism.

The Romans did not bury this aqueduct as is commonly believed. Instead this aqueduct was engulfed in a massive deposit of sediments and lignite.

A previous discussion of this was posted on the Malaga Bay Blog.

There’s more than a 2000 year Heinsohn Hiatus here, and my guess is that the Roman period was terminated by the Tertiary tectonic event.

Update: A crucial fact is how one thinks.  Religious minds tend to see what they believe, and hence when confronted with the fact of Miocene sediments overlying roman water works will, to avoid cognitive dissonance, conclude the Romans dug the water works under the Miocene sediments.

The scientific mind, on the other hand, believes what it sees, and concludes that the roman waterworks were buried under a dumping of sediment.

About Louis Hissink

Retired diamond exploration geologist. Trained by Western Mining Corporation and polished by De Beers.
This entry was posted in Catastrophism, Geology, Hare-brained theories. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Roman Mystery in Elsbach Lignite Pit or Hissink’s Heresy

  1. A more detailed enlargement of the cross section in Figure 2 by Tim Cullen at Malaga Bay shows that the “wee white things” are not the aqueduct. This fact with the two profiles FR 125 and FR 126 leads one to the conclusion that someone is being very cautious in publishing data of a controversial nature.

    So my interpretation that the Roman water works are covered by “Holocene” or Miocene strata is mine alone.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s