The Hypatia Stone

[EnolaGaia]

A small diamond-ensrusted stone was discovered in 1996 in southwestern Egypt - more specifically, in the field where desert glass had been harvested as far back as ancient times.

This small stone, completely different from the other glass objects from the so-called Libyan glass field, has always been considered something of an anomaly. It's always been presumed to have fallen to earth from outer space, but its composition and features don't match any known or theorized exemplars.

Somewhere along the line it was named 'Hypatia' in honor of the earliest reputed female natural philosopher / mathematician - Hypatia of Alexandria.

As of 2013:

http://www.sci-news.com/space/scien...mond-bearing-pebble-evidence-comet-01446.html

... it seemed as if the most likely explanation was that the Hypatia stone represented a fragment of a comet's nucleus. This would arguably make the stone the first demonstrable evidence of a comet (as opposed to any other incoming body) striking the earth.

More recently, subsequent analyses indicate the Hypatia stone does not conform to any known or theorized category of material from within our solar system or originating since the sun initially coalesced.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180109112437.htm

https://www.livescience.com/61409-extraterrestrial-hypatia-stone.html

This raises the possibility that the Hypatia stone may be of extra-solar origin, or perhaps a remnant of the pre-solar material from which our star system derived.

In light of the recent Oumuamua fly-by mania, I found it odd nobody mentioned we already had an object that might be of extra-solar origin.

NOTE: I'm uncertain whether these latest analyses are taken to refute the earlier theory the stone might be a fragment of a cometary nucleus.

 

[skinny]

Cool. A comet or meteor is a likely origin.

desert glass

Meteor impact zone. Compacted silicates. High temps. Glass.

Does extra-solar designate as from a neighbouring system, regions between stars, or does it include the region known as the Oort Cloud? Thanks.

 

[skinny]

This man begs to differ, most strenuously: You will of course forgive his poor English.
Norbert Brügge, Germany
Dipl.-Geol.
Update:14.03.2017

The arguments for cometary origin of "Hypatia"

-It contains sub-micrometer diamonds in an amorphous, carbon-dominated matrix.
-Carbon isotope data (δ13C~0) do not fit terrestrial coal or carbonaceous chondrites.
-Argon, Kr and Xe isotope data show extraterrestrial origin different from chondrites.​

are not convincing, because ultimately our planet was created by aggregation of exo-terrestrial material (even cometary material). What we know about the Earth's interior, is not enough. Surprises are always possible. Predestined seems to be the area in the southwestern Egyptian desert. It was affected by a magmatic "hotspot" in the Tertiary period. The findings of "sub-micrometer diamonds in an amorphous, carbon-dominated matrix" are a clear indication for the origin of the material at great depths.

What it looks like:

 

[EnolaGaia]

There's certainly a (pre-) history of vulcanism in that desert area. For example, see Brügge's 2004 overview:

http://www.b14643.de/Sahara/Clayton_Craters/

... concerning the Clayton Craters and other volcanic structures in that area.

However, magmatic / volcanic origins for the Libyan desert glass have generally been considered 'out of play' owing to the chemistry and dating of the glass.

Another issue concerns the fact the above-cited research focuses on the geologic features of the region (i.e., craters, dikes, etc.). Even though the presence of crater structures in the area has been casually taken to support the impact interpretation for the Libyan desert glass (and the Hypatia stone), there's no necessary linkage between the presence of glass (etc.) with non-terrestial chemistry and any substantial impact crater(s).

In other words, demonstrating that local crater structures originated 'from below' rather than 'from above' doesn't really address the desert glass / Hypatia stone at all.

The currently accepted dating of the glass (circa 26my BP) lies within the upper / later reaches of the Tertiary. This could be consistent with a volcanic / magmatic origin, if only the chemistry supported that notion.

Brügge's critique is substantive, but he doesn't provide any basis for assuming the anomalous chemistry issues can be explained by deep geologic processes.

I'm open to the possibility of the desert glass / Hypatia stone eventually being demonstrated to be of terrestrial origin. However, I'm not likely to be convinced until and unless he (and / or others) account for the chemical anomalies.

Even if it turns out to be terrestrial, the Hypatia stone would still be remarkable as evidence for previously-unsuspected deep / magmatic products ...

 

[escargot]

This man begs to differ, most strenuously: You will of course forgive his poor English.
Norbert Brügge, Germany
Dipl.-Geol.
Update:14.03.2017

The arguments for cometary origin of "Hypatia"

-It contains sub-micrometer diamonds in an amorphous, carbon-dominated matrix.
-Carbon isotope data (δ13C~0) do not fit terrestrial coal or carbonaceous chondrites.
-Argon, Kr and Xe isotope data show extraterrestrial origin different from chondrites.​

are not convincing, because ultimately our planet was created by aggregation of exo-terrestrial material (even cometary material). What we know about the Earth's interior, is not enough. Surprises are always possible. Predestined seems to be the area in the southwestern Egyptian desert. It was affected by a magmatic "hotspot" in the Tertiary period. The findings of "sub-micrometer diamonds in an amorphous, carbon-dominated matrix" are a clear indication for the origin of the material at great depths.

What it looks like:

Must admit, I was expecting something more like this -