Tunguska eyewitness accounts, injuries, and casualties

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Icarus journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/icarus

Tunguska eyewitness accounts, injuries, and casualties a,⁎

b

b

T b

Peter Jenniskens , Olga P. Popova , Dmitry O. Glazachev , Elena D. Podobnaya , Anna P. Kartashovac a b c

SETI Institute, 189 Bernardo Ave, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States Institute for Dynamics of Geospheres RAS, Moscow, Russia Institute of Astronomy RAS, Moscow, Russia

A B S T R A C T

The airburst events at Chelyabinsk and Tunguska in Russia are the best-documented asteroid impacts of recent times. Models that assess the potential danger from such events rely on an accurate picture of their aftermath. Here, we re-examine the most critical eyewitness accounts of the Tunguska airburst, namely those that describe injuries and casualties, and those that paint a picture of what events were responsible. Not all relevant information has survived in the written record and there are contradictions that create some ambiguity. We find that inside and near the tree-fall area were at least 30 people. Many lost consciousness and at least 3 passed away (immediately or later) as a direct consequence of the Tunguska event. The airburst created a butterfly-shaped pattern of glass damage extending 4–5 times wider than that seen at Chelyabinsk. At these larger distances, any injuries from falls, shattering glass cuts, or from UV radiation exposure were not reported.

1. Introduction Asteroid impact risk models require an understanding of how asteroid impacts can injure people and damage property (e.g., Nemtchinov et al., 2008; Mathias et al., 2017; Rumpf et al., 2017; Baum, 2018). People can get injured from the effects of the airburst shockwave and from effects of the thermal radiation of the fireball. The shockwave can be lethal due to overpressure (the maximum pressure in excess of the ambient atmospheric pressure) and strong winds. Overpressure can cause unconsciousness, concussion, lung damage, eardrum rupture, and shock. Winds can cause people to be hit by solid objects (glass, rocks, trees) or to be thrown into objects. Winds also can cause exposure to dangerous chemicals and other materials brought into the environment by the shockwave. Thermal radiation can cause injuries by direct burns of different degrees (flash burns), by sunburn from UV light, or can cause retinal and conjunctiva damage and blinding. Finally, people can fall unconscious or die from being exposed to smoke and suffocating gases or even from shock (Glasstone and Dolan, 1977; Gel'fand and Sil'nikov, 2002). The injuries and damage from the 500 kt Chelyabinsk airburst event on February 15, 2013, have been the topic of previous studies (e.g., Popova et al., 2013; Kartashova et al., 2018). Injuries were mostly restricted to cuts and bruises, but 1613 people asked for medical attention at local hospitals (Popova et al., 2013; Kartashova et al., 2014, 2018). Two were in serious condition: one child from Kopeysk had an eyeball cut by glass and one 52-y old woman in Kopeysk suffered a spinal fracture. Both victims were evacuated for treatment to Moscow.

⁎

A population of 1.7 million people lived in the affected area (Popova et al., 2013). About 1% of the 1758 people who chose to submit an online report in the weeks after the event reported some form of injury, mostly sunburn, hurting eyes, temporary deafness and headaches (Popova et al., 2013; Kartashova et al., 2018). A fraction of 4.4% of respondents who were outside ended up with some level of sunburn, suggesting an energy dose of far-UV radiation > 0.7 kJ/m2 (Huang et al., 2010). More than half reported they could feel the heat from the fireball. No fires were ignited by the event. Ignition of ground litter requires about 350 kJ/m2 (Glasstone and Dolan, 1977) and this limit was not reached. Eardrums will typically rupture at about 16 kPa (Mannan, 2005), but no reports of such injuries were made. Instances of both glass cuts and being hit by (or blown into) obstacles were usually found at similar frequencies in the area where overpressures were > 1 kPa, independent of the distance from the Chelyabinsk meteoroid trajectory out to about 50 km (Kartashova et al., 2018). In the week following the event, people continued to report to the hospital because of the ongoing stressful conditions and aftermath of shock (Malinina et al., 2014; Kartashova et al., 2018). The Chelyabinsk airburst happened in winter and the widespread damage to windows had a significant impact on people's daily routine. We mapped the butterfly-pattern of broken windows out to a distance of 90 km perpendicular from the trajectory, corresponding to an overpressure of 0.5–1 kPa (Popova et al., 2013). This documented over what area one can expect to find glass damage from a Chelyabinsk-type airburst of 500 kt power. Models often assume that typical urban glass windows of 0.5–1.5 m2 in size have a probability of 0.4–7% of breaking

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Jenniskens).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2019.01.001 Received 1 August 2018; Received in revised form 24 November 2018; Accepted 3 January 2019 Available online 05 January 2019 0019-1035/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

at 500 Pa over pressure (Gi et al., 2018). Here, we summarize and interpret the eyewitness accounts of Tunguska with the knowledge gained from our studies of the Chelyabinsk airburst event. Tunguska was a more significant impact, with more dramatic consequences. The written record is voluminous, but contains many gaps of essential information and uncertain eyewitness location and identities that leave much room for interpretation. Even though the impact was in a sparsely populated region, we find accounts in the written record detailing several casualties from this event.

Table 1 Overview of eyewitness reports.

2. Available records of the Tunguska impact The Tunguska event has a long history of field studies and investigations with special emphasis on finding the epicenter of the tree fall pattern and the site of a possible meteorite fall (e.g., Kulik, 1921, 1922, 1927; Voznesensky, 1925; Krinov, 1949, 1963, 1966; Fast, 1967; Longo et al., 2005). The direction of the meteor and the kinetic energy of the impact were also studied in much detail to provide clues about the nature of the impactor (Shapley, 1930; Whipple, 1930, 1934; Astapovich, 1934; La Paz, 1948; Jankowski, 1960; Vasiliev, 1960; Hughes, 1976; Turco et al., 1982; Zhuravlev et al., 1998; Vasilyev, 1998). For recent reviews see Farinella et al. (2001), Longo (2007), Svetsov and Shuvalov (2008), and Rubtsov (2009). The results of this work can be summarized as follows. From barometric and seismic recordings, Tunguska's main energy deposition was 3–50 Mt (most likely 10–15 Mt). The airburst occurred on a Tuesday morning at 7 h14 m a.m. ( ± 1 min) local time on June 17, 1908 in the Julian calendar, or at 0 h14 m UT on June 30, 1908 in today's Gregorian calendar (Farinella et al., 2001; Longo, 2007). The change to the Gregorian calendar was made in Russia not until 14 February 1918. The energy was deposited at 6–12 km altitude, based on the fact that trees were still standing upright in an ~8 km diameter area at the center, and is consistent with the recorded time of seismic signals in Irkutsk (Ivanov, 1963; Plekhanov, 1963). Based on a continuous and even burn from above, trees in the central area of the fall were singed from the fireball's thermal radiation (Vorobyev and Demin, 1976). The singe pattern is not centered on the epicenter of the tree fall, but is 2–3.5 km further back along the trajectory (Zenkin and Ilyin, 1964). Fires were also started in a spotty pattern over a larger area, out to about 10–15 km from the epicenter (Svetsov and Shuvalov, 2008). Coincidentally, the epicenter of the airburst occurred just offset from the crater center of a lower Triassic Kulikovksy paleo-volcanic complex that is part of the Siberian igneous province associated with the Permian-Triassic extinction event (Longo, 2007). From the tree-fall pattern, the asteroid moved on a h = 5–45° inclined trajectory from a direction (azimuth from true north) of Az = 99–127° (Farinella et al., 2001; Shuvalov and Artemieva, 2002; Longo, 2007) with a required entry speed for bound orbits with semimajor axis > 1.5 AU of V∞ = 20–40 km/s depending strongly on the azimuth direction of the trajectory (Levin, 1954; Bronshten, 1999). Eyewitness testimonies point to similar trajectory directions from Az = 99–138° and entry angle of 5–32° (Andreev, 1990; Zotkin and Chigorin, 1988, 1991; Bronshten, 2000a; Longo, 2007; Svetsov and Shuvalov, 2008). The Tunguska event occurred in a sparsely populated area of Siberia in the present-day Evenkiysky district of the Krasnoyarsk Kray, but was seen and experienced by thousands of locals, some residing inside the tree-fall area. The weather was clear: a cloud-less morning with the Sun at ~27° elevation. Winds at the surface were weak southeasterly at 2–5 m/s (Florenskiy, 1963). Eyewitness accounts were first published in newspapers in the weeks after the event in 1908 (Table 1). Despite the low population density, there are about 70 reports in the Russian newspapers and in the form of written letters shortly after the event in 1908 (Table 1). Voznesensky (1925) collected letters and followed up with queries.

Date

Reference

#

Source

1908 1908 1921 1925 1926 1927–41 1930–32 1959–60 1962 1959–72

Newspaper reports Voznesensky (1925) Kulik (1927), Krinov (1949) Obruchev (1925) Suslov (1927, 1967) Kulik, Krinov (1949) Astapovich (1935, 1951) G. P. Kolobkova (local) Konenkin (1967) KSE† (Expeditions of ITEG, KMET and AAGS), Vasilyev et al. (1981)

~10 61 19+ 10+ 12+ 29+ 27+ 17+ 35 ~500

Local reporters Letters, query Letters, query Interviews Interviews Interviews, letters Interviews Interviews Interviews Query, interviews

Notes: †KSE = Independent Interdisciplinary Expeditions; ITEG = Independent Tunguska Exploration Group; KMET = Committee on Meteorites, USSR Academy of Science; AAGS = All-Union Astronomical and Geodetical Society.

These reports contain few details. In 1911, a hydro-geological expedition led by V. Shishkov glanced upon an area with fallen trees, but its location was not reported. Further accounts were gathered in preparation for and during the field work to the area led by Leonid Alekseyevich Kulik in 1927, 1928 and 1929–1930 (Kulik, 1927, 1939, 1940; Krinov, 1949). Renewed interest came with aerial surveys of the tree fall pattern by Kulik in 1938–1939 (Krinov, 1949, 1960), and in 1958 (Boyarkina et al., 1964; Fast, 1967). Eyewitness accounts continued to be collected by members of the Independent Tunguska Exploration Group (founded by Gennady Plekhanov and Nikolay Vasilyev) during 1959–1974 and during organized field campaigns by Tomsk University researchers (e.g., Vasilyev et al., 1981). Many more reports were collected from surviving eyewitnesses, many of whom were able to recall details. These latter reports may suffer from the time passed, or are retold accounts as heard from others. At that time, observers were asked to sketch how they remembered the fireball, results of which are compiled in Fig. 1. Many eyewitness accounts were gathered in a report by Vasilyev et al. (1981). This archive of accounts is an often under-appreciated tool for assessing the effects of the impact on the environment and on people living in the region. Some stories have been retold in previous literature, but the source of those stories is not always clear. Some stories exist in different versions. For that reason, information quoted from this report is referenced here with the section number (e.g., [5.2] for Akulina's account). A majority of the accounts used in Vasilyev et al. are now online, including some additional or more elaborate accounts (Rodimova et al., 2008: http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/science/mat/oche/, last accessed October 2018). In recent years, on-line translation tools have matured that make it possible to read these online Russian documents in English. In the remainder of this paper, we will refer to this archive as TSC (Tomsk Scientific Center document), followed by the document number given (e.g., TSC 56 [5.2]), for Akulina's account, which is both in the on-line Tomsk Science Center archive and in (Vasilyev et al., 1981). In reading the eyewitness accounts, the reader should know that the area of impact was permafrost-taiga inhabited by local reindeer nomads. They call themselves Evenki (plural Evenkil), while the Russianlanguage literature speaks of Tungus and Tungusy, and since the 1920's of Evenk and Evenki, respectively. We follow Sirina (2006) in using Evenki and Evenkis, respectively, for the English language form. The Evenkis speak Evenki, part of the northern group of Tungusic languages and a branch of the Manchu-Tungus (Tungusic) language family. There was no written language before 1931. Individuals were known by both their indigenous Evenki name and a Russian-style name. Shirokogorov (1929) described the Evenkis as excellent observers of nature. Evenkis typically lived in small family groups of a few adults with, or without, a few children, herding a small group of reindeer, and living in conical tent-like structures called “chum” and pronounced “choom”, 5

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

Fig. 1. Compilation of sketches of the Tunguska fireball collected from eyewitnesses in the 1960's (Vasilyev et al., 1981). Notes: Individual drawings are assumed to reflect the meteor at different times and are arranged in the following order based on the appearance of the Chelyabinsk meteor: (a) Roman Innokentievich Kurilov at Aleshkino, drawing 1 (TSC 19), which is like Anton Shalovannikov from Kuryzh drawing 2 (Fireball looked “white or bluish with a short tail” – TSC 19; E. E. Sarychev described the dust cloud: “From the radiance there was a trace in the form of a bluish strip that stretched almost along the entire path and then disappeared from the end.” – TSC 19); (b) Kurilov drawing 2; (c) Kurilov drawing 3, like Shalovannikov drawing 4 (A. Bulaev near Yeniseysk described it now as: “… a red ball with a fiery broom behind it. The ball was twice as large as the sun, and the broom emitted sparks”); (d) Anna Antonovna Likhanova in Utulik (She pointed out that “the broom was red” and gradually faded, interpreted here as the glowing debris cloud.); (e) Shalovannikov drawing 3; (f) Evdokia Fominichna Glebskaya, Migun (TSC 35), like sketch by Vasily Grigoryevich Nechaev, Kezhma (TSC 42); (g) Grigoriy Semenovich Sharov, Sagaevskoe (TSC 35); (h) Kondraty Petrovich Bosharov, Ust-Barguzin (TSC 35), also like drawing by Vasily Gavrilovich Kozlov (TSC 35); (i) Kurilov drawing 4, like Shalovannikov drawing 1.

and translated to English could be called “lodge” (Sirina, 2006). The Evenkis call these conical dwellings “dju” in their own language, but the term “chum” was used by their ethnic neighbors and is now rooted in the literature. A chum is made from up to 30 wooden poles and covered with reindeer hides sewn together in winter, or birch bark or suede in summer. Some accounts suggest reindeer hides were still in place on some chums at the time of the event. The center of the chum has a fireplace used for heating, cooking, and to keep the mosquitoes away. Life was based on reindeer husbandry as well as hunting and fishing, with storage facilities for food (flour and meat) and warm winter clothes kept at various sites (e.g., Tugolukov, 1969; Sirina, 2006). At the time of the event, Shamanism had survived most attempts to convert Evenkis to Christianity. The accounts make mention of Agdy, lord of thunder. In Evenki mythology, the flight of the iron Agdy birds is what caused thunder and their fiery eyes caused lightning (Mazin, 1984). Uchir is the god of wind. Aksiri is the god of heaven. Evenki tradition in those days was to bury the deceased at the place of their death: “Where ever you roamed, if a man died you'd bury him right there” (Sirina, 2006). It was also not unusual to add some items to a burial. Prior to Christianity influences, the Evenkis also practiced a traditional aerial burial in tree graves, in which the corpse was wrapped with bark and then left in a hammock in a tree, or placed in a wooden coffin carved from a tree trunk and placed on a special platform or branches in a tree. Evenkis tended to avoid places where the dead are buried and were reluctant to speak of them. In part because of that, few

accounts have survived that give details about injuries and casualties. In addition to the Evenki population, Siberia had been open to Russian farmers and fur traders since the 17th century expansion of Russian influence. They had settled in small villages along the rivers (e.g., Kezhma along the Angara river). Aside from the reindeer trails on land, rivers were the main routes of transportation. The Tunguska impact occurred during the reign of Tsar Nikolai II. Taxes were collected from the Evenkis in the form of furs through traditional clan organizations. Gold mining communities had been established along the Yenisei Ridge. The Trans-Siberian Railway line had reached Lake Baikal in the south in 1898, bringing a wave of new peasant migrants from western parts of Russia. The Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) was still on people's minds. 3. Results All in all, Vasilyev et al. (1981) report about 700 accounts in which 1984 individuals are mentioned (including perhaps 10% duplicate names or sources and accounts unrelated to Tunguska) from 386 different locations (Longo, 2007). Of those, 44 eyewitness reports were collected that describe events as witnessed < 130 km from the epicenter (Vasilyev et al., 1981). Only a handful of accounts are from people who were inside, or near, what was later defined as the tree fall contour shown in Fig. 2 (Longo et al., 2005). Yellow circles mark our best understanding of the location of these eyewitnesses, based on the arguments given in the 6

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

(caption on next page)

into Suslov's long family history in engaging with the Evenkis. His father spoke Evenki and he himself understood it a bit. In those years, the first tribal clan councils and clan courts were established as organs of Soviet power among Evenkis. 60 Evenkis participated in the congress, which took place at the Strelka trading station at the confluence of the North and South Chunya rivers (Strelka-Chunya), north of the impact

footnotes. Most were near the border of the tree fall area. The most relevant accounts of injuries and casualties were collected in 1926, when Evenkis gathered in a meeting attended by ethnographer Innokenty Mikhailovich Suslov (1893–1972), chairman of the Krasnoyarsk Committee for Assistance to the Peoples of the North (Suslov, 1927, 1967). Anderson and Orekhova (2002) provide insight 7

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

Fig. 2. Annotated map with location of eyewitnesses (yellow) and tree fall pattern (Longo et al., 2005), with a red dot at its epicenter (Fast, 1967). The light area inside the red contour contains trees singed from above by radiant heat (Zhuravlev and Zigel, 1998), modified southwards of the Khushma river to the border of the burned area marked by Krinov (1960). Topographic map is that of the Krasnoyarsk Territory (Map no. 63: Tungussko-Chunsky district of the Evenki Autonomous Okrug). The thick black contour is the boundary of the Tunguska National Nature Reserve. Dashed lines are winter roads. Alternative spellings include "Yadunikan" (Yadulikan), "Ugakit" (Ukagit), and "Ukikitkon" (Ukogitkon). Legend to Fig. 2: [1] Dilyushma – Akulina, husband Ivan, and Vasily Okchen in one chum (TSC 56 [5.2]), with at least one other chum at that location (TSC 41 [7.33]). The chums were at the mouth of the Dilyushma, at the confluence into the Khushma (TSC 56 [5.2]). Position marked on Suslov's original map between Dilyushma and Khushma rivers, but having Dilyushma ending in Khushma river instead of Chamba (Krinov, 1949). Ivan is Ivan Potapovich (nickname Machakugyr); [2] Khovorkikta (=“Avarkitta”) – Chum of brothers Chuchancha (Stepan Ivanovich) and Chekaren of the Shanyagyr clan (TSC 56 [5.3]), with brother Nalezh (TSC 64, or Nalga – TSC 39, or Nalegi – Krinov, 1949) and father Podyga with wife in a separate chum. Suslov marked a position “II” in middle reaches of Khovorkikta, between the Khovorkikta and Chamba. Krinov (1949) marked 5 chums at the confluence of the Khovorkikta and Chamba, labeled “Podyga's sons”. We adopted Suslov's position, but put it adjacent to Khovorkikta; [3] Chamba – Ul'kigo, his father Lurbuman (Shanyagir), wife and four children. Chum was on the bank of the Chamba, not far from its mouth. However, it was said that from that site one could look up Mount Lakuru (TSC 56 [5.4], account by Ul'kigo). Also, the site was close to, but perhaps not in, the tree fall area. Position not marked by Suslov (1927), nor by Krinov (1949); [4] Lakura Ridge – Shaman Uiban (TSC 56 [5.5], mentioned by Suslov). Location of Lakura is between Lakura river and Kimchu river (TSC 56 [5.6]), account by Andrey Onkul. Krinov (1949) notes that Evenki's “Lakura” is not peak labeled Lakura Ridge in Fig. 2. Plekhanov (1963) puts “Lakura” 15 km to NE of that peak, based on Evenki accounts. Kuvshinnikov and Kolobkova (1963) put the site 15 km west of mount Shahorma; [5] Chamba Yakukta – Camp with 4 chums (TSC 30 [7.35]) and at least 6 people in the group (TSC 39), including Pavel Daonov and Ivan Ivanovich Aksenov (born 1884). Aksenov left camp in the morning and was alone on the hunt for elk somewhere in the mouth, or possibly just above, the Makikta estuary. Camp was a little further south on Chamba. After midday, he returned to camp, found Pavel unconscious and after Pavel woke they set out to put out fires near the “Shelle”, 1 km from the Chamba (between Makikta and Khushma) (TSC 30 [7.35]); [6] Lower reaches of Khushma – Position uncertain, on the bank of the Khushma (TSC 39 [7.6]). Camp of some members of the Dzhenkoul family. Group may have included Ivan Ilyich Dzhenkoul, Ivan's father, and daughter Anastasiya (Nastya) Dzhenkoul, as well as father of Afanasy Daonov in a separate chum. Ivan Ilyich was a guide to Kulik's 1938 expedition and recalls wind blowing from NW and trees falling (TSC 39). Possibly same group as Kaynachenok family who were staying on the Khushma and later where looking for their storages there (TC 168); [7] Chuvar Ridge between Kimchu and Khushma – Vasily Nikitich Tarkichenok and 1-y old son Pavel Vasilyevich Tarkichenok (TSC 252 [7.19]). A second story by teenager Andrei Vasilievich Tarkichenok (TSC 66 [7.20]) likely refers to same location. More than one chum. Exact location unknown, but trees fell in east-west direction (TSC 252 [7.19]), suggesting closer to Khushma than to Kimchu; [8] Along Kimchu river – Tatyana Nikolaevna Livesherova, husband, and others: 8 chums stood there (TSC 32 [7.41]), account by Livesherova. Location in tree fall area. Position 8 is marked by Krinov (1966) as a “homestead”, but it is uncertain that this refers to Livesherova. It is along the road to Strelka-Chunya, which passed through the upper reaches of the river Jelindukon (=“Gyljakon”) (TSC 33). Trees fell on the Jelindukon (TSC 33, 92); [9] Panolik – Camp located on the river Panolik, was blown away (TSC 252 [7.10], 57 [6.25]), old man Kovshirchin and wife Tatyana recalled in 1959 (TSC 39 [7.10]); [10] Close to the mouth of the Kimchu into the Chunya, north of the Kimchu – Father and mother Dmitriev. Total 50 people in just 6 chums. (TSC 41 [7.31], account from Maria Vasilyevna Dmitrieva); [11] Mouth of Tetere river – Location of Ilya Potapovich (Lyuchetkan) at time of event (guide to Kulik in 1927) (TSC 32; Krinov, 1949). Also TSC 65 [7.3–7.4]; [12] Churgim river – Location of second storage facility of Dzhenkoul's family (TSC 39, [7.11]). Between Kimchu and Churgim river (TSC 41, [7.26]). Vasily Dzhenkoul's area for deer grazing. Herd of ~200–500. A remnant of a storage facility was found here by Kulik's team, marked by Krinov (1949); [13] Lake Cheko – Approximate location of a storage facility of Dzhenkoul's family (TSC 39 [7.11], TSC 252 [6.7]); [14] Vanavara – Location of several eye witnesses (TSC 57 [6.3, 6.4]). [15] Near Lakura ridges - Food and winter clothes storage shelter of Stepan Ilyich Ankov and his three brothers, one of which is Ivan Ilyich Ankov (TSC 57, frame 109–110; 39 [7.7]). Unknown position, but in same area “where the deer died”. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

not in the Khushma (Krinov, 1949). The position marked as “1” in Fig. 2 is on the right bank of the Dilyushma at the confluence with the Chamba. This location is just outside the tree-fall area. Akulina describes what happened leading up to her husband Ivan being thrown from the chum against a tree, breaking his arm (Table 2, column “A”), and then follows with (TSC 56 [5.2], our translation): “… Suddenly I hear someone moan softly. I ran to the voice and saw it was Ivan. He lay on the ground between the branches of a large tree. His arm had been broken by the tree trunk, a bone protruding through his bloodied shirt. At this sight, I fainted and fell down. But soon I came by. Ivan became more alert and began to moan louder and cry. I took off my skirt, tore it up, and wrapped it around Ivan's broken arm. Poor Ivan howled like a wolf, cried, swore, and shouted that he was in pain. Uchir had thrown Ivan a long distance. If you put ten chums next to him, he fell down behind the last chum.” According to Suslov, this meant he had been thrown a distance of about 40 m. When old Vasily emerged from cover, he took Ivan from Akulina. They moved to the chum and storage at the Dilyushma river. “The walk was even harder: a lot of fallen trees. The old man and Ivan often fell, Ivan cried out in pain.” They found their chum and stores mostly destroyed. Some meat was left in a copper kettle and some flour inside a burned package. Vasily lit a fire and they quenched their hunger. “Ivan ate very little; he moaned all over, complained of severe pain

area, from June 1 to June 4, 1926. In reading the accounts, please keep in mind that other unrelated events in the area also caused casualties. One to two years after the Tunguska event, the area was hit by a smallpox epidemic that cost many lives. Forest fires could also be deadly and some later reports of casualties could relate to those. 3.1. First casualty report Only two direct accounts of people experiencing the circumstances that led to severe injuries and casualties from the Tunguska event are known, both collected by Suslov at the Evenkis meeting in 1926 and on his way to that meeting (Suslov, 1967). The first account is from Akulina, an Evenki woman living in 1926 close to Vanavara, who stayed in a suede-covered chum with her husband Ivan and old man Vasily (son of Okhchen) at the time of the event. Ivan Potapovich (Chamdal) is mentioned as being the husband of Akulina and old man Vasily is listed as “Vasyly Okhchen (Pankagir)” on the reverse side of a draft map created during the meeting (TSC 64). Akulina described how their chum was at the Dilyushma river, at the confluence of that river in the Khushma (TSC 56 [5.2]). In Suslov's final map, it shows the chum on the right bank of the Dilyushma, between Dilyushma and Khushma. However, the Dilyushma ends in the Chamba, 8

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

Table 2 Chronological sequence of events described by eyewitnesses at 35–45 km distance from the epicenter (A, C, U, I), and at ≥65 km distance (S+), with our interpretation of the cause. S+

Seen at larger distance

A

C

U

I

In tree-fall area

Interpretation

1 2 3 4

– – – –

– – – –

– – – –

– – – 1

(Inside tent no view) (Inside tent no view) (Inside tent no view) Landscape turns red

Bolide, dust train Disruption Debris cloud Debris cloud

5 – –

Flame from which sparks flew, leaving a thin white train Blinding, brighter than Sun, broom Red broom emitting sparks Sky high above forest on fire, felt heat. Pillar. Flame broke up¢ Column of smoke rises -.-.-

– 1 2

– 1 2

– 1 2

– – –

Debris cloud, smoke? Alert by dogs? Seismic wave?

– – – – – – – – 6 – –

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.Red glow, moving Ash-looking cloud became transparent§ Fires extinguished¶

3 4 5 6 7 – – – – – –

3 4 5 – 6 7 8 9 10 – –

– – – 3 4 5 6 7 – – –

2 – – – – – – – 3 – 4

(Inside tent no view) Event that woke people in tent (dog howling) Knock on the ground below, chum swinging/pushed, whistle sound Second push, people fall Loud noise all around, heard trees falling Bright light (flash), thunder Sounds like gun shots or ice breaking Strong wind hit chum, cover blown, now in open Fallen trees around, burning wood. Smoke, very hot Wind, pushed so they fell On ground fire burns dry. Smoke, visibility drops Taiga is burning, strong heat from that direction -.-.-

Airburst arrives Airburst Lightning?, airburst Airburst Hot air arriving Fires, hot air Airburst Fires Heated air, fires Meteoric dust trail disperses Fires

Notes: A: Akulina; C: Chuchancha; U: Ul'kigo; I: I. Aksenov; S: S. Semenov and other distant witnesses. ¢Others: two pillars or one forked fire-like pillar, visible only briefly (TSC 35). §From Krasnoyarsk newspaper, July 13, 1908 (TSC 50); “Flight of the ball slowly dispersed in the sky, but was visible almost till evening in a blurry form” (TSC 41). ¶Florenskiy (1963).

in the broken arm and finally fell asleep. He was very sick, weak, and had a fever. It was a bright night, and the fires began to wane. Instead of hot, it became cold. […] We decided to move to Katanga (upper reaches of the Podkamennaya (Stony) Tunguska river – Ed.). When we went to the river Chamba, we were already very weak. All around, we saw a miracle, a terrible miracle. The forest was not ours. I've never seen such a forest. (Here, they had entered the tree-fall area - Ed.) […] …and the moss still burned and smoked, the eyes hurt. We were covered in soot, our clothes tore at us. […] Ivan was completely weakened. We found a good birch, the old man tore off the birch bark, we packed it in two layers and laid Ivan on it, flour, a teapot and drove it over the ground.” The italized text in Russian: “Иван совсем ослабел. Нашли мы хорошую березу, старик содрал бересту, сложили мы ее в два слоя и уложили на нее Ивана, муку, чайник и повезли по земле.” This text is usually interpreted to mean that the bark was used to construct a makeshift stretcher and Ivan (with the flour and teapot) was carried along the trail (which was strewn with forest litter). Kulik is known to have carried staff in this manner during spring along more passable trails, and called it “shumikha”, meaning “noisy”, or “loud” (Kulik, 1935). In Akulina's narration, however, the concern for Ivan's declining health suddenly stops at this point, even though there appears to have been a long way to go until reaching the Podkamennaya river. There is no mention in the story whether or not Ivan survived the injury. There is no more mention of husband Ivan after that in Akulina's account. Walking all night, they (Now only Akulina and Vasily?) finally arrived back in unspoiled forest. In the morning (one or two days later – TSC 64) they reached the Podkamennaya Tunguska. Akulina drank some water and fell asleep. Ivan's brother Lyuchetkan discovered her on the bank of the river. He had experienced the event at the Tetere river, briefly visited Vanavara, and had come up the Podkamennaya Tunguska in a birch bark canoe to fish. He woke her up and they traveled to his chum near the mouth of the Tetere river (TSC 56). Some indication that Ivan may still have been alive in 1923 came from a 1924 letter to Kulik by A. N. Sobolev (TSC 57, 252 [2.7]), who recounted a story told to him by N. N. Kartashov. Kartashov met Ilya Potapovich (who we suspect is Lyuchetkan) and “his brother” who at the time were living on the Tetere river. In brief: “… 15 years ago on the Chamba river lived his brother (now an old Evenki, hardly speaking Russian). […] The chum blew away by the wind, deafened his brother

(he fell unconscious - Ed.), dispelled his deer, which he, having recovered, could not gather, except for a very few.” The brother was ill for a long time. While telling the story, Ilya Potapovich turned to this brother, who had endured all this. The brother brightened up, told something intensely in the Evenki language to Kartashov, and knocked a stick at the support beams and cover of the chum to try to show how it had swept away. Kulik added that this main eyewitness had passed away by the time of his 1927 visit to the area (Kulik, 1935). However, the identity of this brother is uncertain. Note that it is hard to see how Ivan, with a broke arm, could have put in an effort to recover deer. However, old man Vasily Okhchen was interviewed by Suslov two weeks after Akulina and added to her account that: “All three went in search of the reindeer, who had fled at the time of the disaster. Many deer from the herd were not found, they could not be found” (Suslov, 1927; Krinov, 1949). Perhaps Ilya Potapovich had a second brother who was with the group of Pavel Daonov (see caption Fig. 2). Another account from Ilya Potapovich (collected by Obruchev in 1924) said that his brother was close to a lake, his tent was blown away, some deer were killed by fallen trees and others ran away: “He himself lost his tongue from fright for several years” (TSC 252 [3]). Vasilyev et al. (1981) put the location near lake Cheko (position 13 in Fig. 2), but this location is unlikely in light of the reference to the Chamba river above. Indeed, according to Anastasia Grigoryevna Brukhanova, who retold a story that Lyuchetkan told her daughter: “… Ilya Potapovich died in 1935, and his brothers died earlier” (TSC 39 [10.240]). The plural form here implies that Lyuchetkan had at least two brothers. In 1926, Suslov recorded that Ivan had passed away as a direct consequence of the Tunguska event (TSC 56 [5.5]): “Agdys killed deers, they killed dogs, people were hurt - three people died: Lurbuman “buche” (died), Ivan Machakugyr, brother of Lyuchetkan, his hand crumbled and he died, shaman Uiban immediately “bucho”, died on Lakura.” Suslov points out that Ivan had died by 1926 (TSC 56 [5.5]), but it appears Suslov was informed Ivan had died in the direct aftermath of the Tunguska event. Indeed, working with Suslov, Vladimir Schnitke wrote in a letter to Vasilyev (TSC 64): “One has clearly died from the infection of blood (Ivan), and the death of the other two is unlikely to cause rumors. During such a great catastrophe, more people could perish.” A good account of the conditions in the tree-fall area comes from the 9

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

completely dead. We buried him that same day according to our Evenki faith.” It is interesting to note that the uncontrollable motion could mean the man had a seizure, or perhaps the father was a shaman. The description of his behavior might also be an ethnically colored reaction to this event that was understood as supernatural (e.g., Sirina, 2006).

Podyga children: Chuchancha, which is his Evenki indigenous name, also addressed by Suslov with his Russian first names Stepan Ivanovich (family name unknown) and his brother Chekaren from the Shanyagir clan, who spoke Russian (TSC 56 [5.3]). Their chums stood next to the chum of their father in the middle reaches of the Khovorkikta (Avarkitta) river. Suslov marked the position between Khovorkikta and Chamba (position “2” in Fig. 2 is in the tree fall area). Chuchancha said: “Before sunrise, Chekaren and I came from the Dilyushma River, where we stayed with Ivan and Akulina.” In brief (Table 2, column “C”): Woke up, when someone was pushing them; Heard a whistle and sensed a strong wind; Another push, so much so that Chuchancha hit the chum poles and fell on the hot coals in the fireplace; Outside was a noise, audible as the woods fell; About to get out of the chum, suddenly thunder struck very hard; Earth began to twitch and swing; Strong wind hit the chum and knocked it down, covering Chuchancha with poles; Fallen trees around, burning wood; Smoke, very hot; Suddenly over the mountain where forest had already fallen he saw a bright light, resembling lightning, followed immediately by thunder; Chuchancha and Chekaren climbed out from under chum poles; Another flash and thunder; Wind knocked them down; When walking among the trees, looked up, another flash and thunder and another weaker event happened further away towards the West. Because the impact happened in a clear sky, the lightning-like flashes and thunder are related to the atmospheric disturbance caused by the meteor.

3.3. Third casualty report Suslov included the general information that three people died altogether (TSC 56 [5.5]): “… Lurbuman buche (died), Ivan Machakugyr, Luchetkan's brother, crumbled his hand and died, shaman Uyban immediately bucho, died on Lakura.” The Russian text reads: “три люди помирал совсем: Люрбуман буче (умер), Иван Мачакугырь, брат Лючеткана, руку крошил и помер, шаман Уйбан сразу бучо, помер на Лакуре, …” In 1965, a group of people from Novokuznetsk under the direction of B. Barsukov passed through Podkamennaya Tunguska from Oskoba to Baykit, conducting polls. An account collected at Kuyumba from Evenki Vasily Zakharovich Koptyulenok (born 1877), mentions this third casualty (TSC 06 [8.4]): “The shaman predicted that he would die during a great thunder and died.” It is possible that “The shaman” is shaman Uiban. However, if Koptyulenok (who was 15 at the time) was as he mentioned at the Yukanosh (“Yuktamot”) and Kuyumba rivers, which is over 260 km from the epicenter, then he likely did not have a first-hand knowledge of his death. A possible location of the shaman's camp is marked “4” in Fig. 2. The location of “Lakura” is not precisely known. The Evenki considered a wider and slightly shifted area as “Lakura” than the ridge itself. The location was likely close to or in the tree-fall area. Several accounts point to fires on Lakura Ridge, even though the area is outside the central region that was badly affected by fires (Fig. 2). Interviewed in 1930 by Krinov, Semyen Borisovich Semyenov recalled (TSC 57 [6.4]) that in the winter of the same year Ivan Ilyich Dzhenkoul, the Evenki, came to him describing the event and said: “Our camp in Lakura burned down” (Krinov, 1949). Semyenov also heard from Evenki Vasily Ilyich Dzhenkoul, who said that in the area of the Lakura Ridge he had burned a winter storage. Nearby (“in the same part where the deer died”) there was also a burned storage of Stepan Ilyich Ankov and his three brothers (TSC 39 [7.7]; TSC 57 [6.4]). Position tentatively marked as “15” in Fig. 2. These accounts did not include a reference to someone passing.

3.2. Second casualty report The second account of a casualty is from Evenki Ul'kigo (TSC 56 [5.4]). Suslov writes: “Old man Ul'kigo, son of Lurbuman of the Shanyagir family began to speak. Old Ul'kigo was said to be eighty years old. The chum of his father Lurbuman stood on the bank of the river Chamba, not far from its mouth. In the chum, his father lived with his wife and four children.” The position of the chum is not marked on Suslov's map. Our position “3” in Fig. 2 was chosen to reflect they were in (or just outside) the tree-fall area and could see Mount Lakura from that location. The sequence of events leading up to the death can be summarized as follows (Column “U” in Table 2): Dogs were howling, woke up in the chum. Knock on the ground below, the chum swinging. Sounds like shots. Started to dress, then the ground moved sharply so he fell down, screamed. Ground struck again, copper kettle fell. Sounds of thunder. Finished dressing, ran outside, and felt heat. Morning was sunny, cloudless, hot. Suddenly, the sky flashed, thunder was heard. Was scared, fell. There was a strong forest wind, and ground litter was burning. Smoke, visibility dropped. Then wind blew the smoke off a little. Ran towards the chum. Strong winds had grabbed the chum cover, only the frame remained. People inside were not harmed. To the north, sound of knocking, smoke, taiga is burning, strong heat from that direction, then trees fall. Then distant sounds of thunder, and thunder (winds) hit hard. Ul'kigo recalls that there was a lot of smoke hurting his eyes. He returned to the chum. The key part of his account related to casualties follows, in Russian: “Рассказал я отцу все, что видел, смотрю, отец закричал, качаться стал, каикатчеран (нервно-психический припадок близкий к безумию). Старик пел с закрытыми глазами, он то вставал на ноги, то садился вдали от костра, но идти не мог. Потом он лег на свою постель и сразу умер, совсем умер. Потом он испугался и умер. В тот же день мы его похоронили по нашей тунгусской вере.” As translated by our native Russian-speaking co-authors: “I told my father everything I saw. ‘I saw it’, my father shouted in fear. He began to cry out, began to swing and move uncontrollably, kaikatchran (neuropsychic attack close to madness). The old man sang with his eyes closed, he rose to his feet, but then sat down at the fireplace as he could not stand up. Then he lay down on his bed and immediately died,

3.4. Possible other casualty reports Possible other casualties are mentioned by Suvorov, who wrote to Vasilyev in 1969 (Vasilyev et al., 1981), recounting how in July of 1934 he traveled with guide Evenki Nikolai Andreevich Kocheni (born in 1880). Kocheni observed the meteor from the South Chunya river and reported that his eyes hurt looking at it. Suvorov then writes (TSC 32 [7.41]): “In the evening we came upon the chum of the Evenki Tatyana Nikolaevna Livesherova (born in 1872). She recalls they then stood on the Kimchu river. Eight chums were at the camp. In her words: ‘We were still asleep, as a storm and thunder came to us. The trees fell, the chum flew away, and winds lifted the people with beds and all from the ground many times over (our translation – Ed.). I was unconscious until evening. Some died even… My man also died. Aksiri left me alive.’ ” The location of the camp is uncertain, but it may be at position “8” in Fig. 2, marked by Krinov (1966) as a homestead. These possible casualties were not reported to Suslov in 1926. During the trip, Kocheni gave a second hand account of casualties: “It was said that the arrow fell in the place where Gorbachek lived. All his deer and he and his laborers were burned.….” (TSC 32 [7.40]). According to Evenki Ayulchin (when he was 102 years old): “On Khushma at the time, there were the Kaynachenok family, who were looking for their storages there, some people died during the explosion, 10

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

the chum broke and was blown away.” On Chuvar Ridge, the trees fell to the West, so perhaps the “tops” refers to the exposed roots, or the direction was mistakenly reversed. A year later, Evenki Andrei Vasilievich Tarkichenok (born 1895) added: “Our family had a camp on the Chuvar ridge. […] I was a teenager and I remember that there was a thunder in the summer morning, the earth began to shake and a lot of trees, even the chum, fell” (TSC 66 [7.20]). The location marked “7” is at a place on the Chuvar ridge where trees would have fallen in an east to west direction. Further away from the epicenter, people were still severely affected. In 1959, grandmother Kaynachenok (TSC 65) recalled that on June 30 she was on the South Chunya at the time of the disaster, and everyone woke up from the terrible thunder. The earth was shaking, and she lay in the chum for a long time, wrapped in a blanket. Similarly, Evenki Pelageya Gavrilovna Kocheni said (TSC 39 [7.16]) that when she was 20: “I lived in the headwaters of the Chunya river. Early in the morning, the weather was clear, and suddenly a strong wind blew and the thunder burst. We were frightened, the chum was picked up by the wind and some trees fell down.”

some got out alive, these people lived long afterwards” (TSC 168). He also pointed out the economic loss to the Evenkis: The Khushma long provided no fish and the area no animals to hunt. Another account of 1908 casualties on a mountain ridge, perhaps related to Tunguska, is that of an anonymous vehicle driver (only a 1959 hear-say account made in 1922–1924), who reported that “… his own brother with his whole family and all his household, of which there was literally nothing left, perished. An invisible force swept through, which cut down the top of the mountain, knocked a lot of wood, and then some 20–30 km in 3 places the forests were burned out a lot” (TSC 57, frame 9–12). 3.5. Other accounts from in and around the tree-fall area Interviewed in 1934 (TSC 30 [7.35]), Evenki Ivan Ivanovich Aksenov, born in 1884, took part as a guide in the caravan from UstIlimpeya (8 km below Yukta) to Vanavara by V. Ya. Shishkov in 1911. Based on his accounts it was deduced that they traveled by reindeer caravan from Stelka-Chunya to Vanavara on a trail touching the northeast corner of the tree-fall area (dashed line in Fig. 2). Early in the morning of the Tunguska event in 1908, Aksenov left his camp at the estuary of the river Yakukta (position labeled “5” in Fig. 2), where he stayed with Pavel Daonov and others, and went hunting for elk. He shot one somewhere at, or above, the mouth of Makikty on the Chamba river and began to carve the carcass. When he worked, bending over the carcass, “suddenly everything turned red.” He was frightened and threw up his head, but at that moment a wind struck, blew away the carcass and he lost consciousness for a while. “When I woke up, I saw: it's all falling down, burning.” Aksenov returned to camp to find Pavel unconscious. After he recovered, both went to the “Shelle” (perhaps the Elyuma, Fig. 2) river to put out fires (TSC 30 [7.35]). In 1959, Evenki Ekaterina Stepanovna Daonova (58–60 years old when interviewed) recalled how her father was about thirty kilometers from the Khushma river (TSC 65 [7.3]), a position consistent with that described by Aksenov. “Later, he told me that at first shots were heard, and then thunder roared. It was scary, trees were falling all around. For two days after that, he lay unconscious.” Other accounts have created some confusion about the location of this camp. Vasily Pavlovich Daonov, born in 1910, recalled how his father and the locals had said that at the time of the fall of the meteorite, his father stood in the lower reaches of the Khushma (TSC 28 [7.38]). He and two other Evenkis, E. Ya. Andreeva and A. V. Petrova told (TSC 28 [7.37]): “The explosion was very strong, the deer tore up, the chum was carried away, people were unconscious. Many deer died. Strong fires started on the taiga. The sky was red for a few days.” There is an account of some Dhzenkoul family members staying in a camp in the lower reaches of the Khushma river (marked “6” in Fig. 2 as a possible camp position). In 1959, Evenki Nastya Dzhenkoul recalled: “Father and grandfather lived at that time on the river Khushma. The weather was good, suddenly it began to rain, a strong wind rose, dragging the birch bark's chum. […] The trees scattered, torn out at their root. All lay like dead for 3 days” (TSC 39 [7.6]). Evenki E. Ya. Shelekina added to this: “The father of Afanasy Daonov lived on the Khushma. They all had their chum destroyed” (TSC 252 [7.9]). There was also a group on Chuvar ridge. In 1964, V. G. Konenkin interviewed two Evenki brothers, Pavel Vasilyevich Tarkichenok (born 1907) and Sergei Vasilyevich Tarkichenok (born 1917) (TSC 252 [7.19]). “We were born in the town of Panolik on the Podkamennaya Tunguska river. Not far north of Panolik river, there is the Chuvar ridge, located between the Kimchu and the Khushma rivers (Fig. 2). Our father, Vasily Nikitich Tarkichenok, hunted the Chuvar ridge until the end of the last century and died on this ridge in 1935. Our chum stood on this ridge, and our father told us many times that when Pavel was one year old, on the Chuvar Ridge trees broke and fell. All the fallen trees fell with their tops to the East. The storm was so strong, that even

3.6. The fate of the Dzhenkoul family deer It is remarkable that no Evenki families resided in the central area of the impact (Fig. 2). Perhaps that is, in part, because this region was occupied otherwise. Kulik (1927) wrote (TSC 74, 252 [6.7]) that Evenki “… Lyuchetkan informed me on April 16, 1927 that the center of the windfall area was the pasture land of his relative, Evenki Vasily Ilyich Dzhenkoul the uncle of his first wife, who was a rich Evenki: he numbered up to 1500 deer, there were a lot of storages in which they stored clothes, dishes, reindeer equipment, etc. Except for a few dozen deer, the rest went around in the mountains in the Khushma River area, but the fire fell and the forest fell, the deer were killed and the stores were destroyed. In search of the deer, they found some burnt carcasses, but the rest were not found at all. Nothing remained of the stores, everything was burned and had melted: clothing, utensils, deer equipment, dishes and samovars (metal container used to boil water for making tea -Ed.), only some ‘boilers’ (buckets) were found surviving. All of these (places -Ed.) are known to the brothers of Vasily Ilyich – Burucha and Mugocha.” Given Burucha and Mugocha were still alive, they probably were not at the site of the killed deer. One of them may have been Ivan Ilyich, who reported the conditions on the river Ogne (TSC 58 [2.6]). The number of deer is debated. “Deer” in this context might mean the quantity of goods that a deer can carry (TSC 57, frame 121–123 [2.6]). On the other hand, Evenkis tended to count only adult reindeer, not the newborn reindeer. The average size of a reindeer herd per family among taiga Evenkis was not more than 25–60 reindeer (Sirina, 2006). Suslov recorded on a draft version of the map created in 1926 that the fire burned about 200 reindeer that belonged to Evenki Stepan Ilyich Dzhenkoul from the tribe of Kurkagyr (Suslov, 1927; TSC 64). Having 200 deer would make Stepan Ilyich rich, but he became poor after the event as Suslov noted. Later, he mentioned that 250 deer vanished without any trace, while other Evenki's dogs and some reindeer were killed (Menges, 1983). Adding to this, Evenki Lavrentiy Vasilyevich Dzhenkoul, born in 1904, was interviewed in 1960 by Kolobkova at Strelka-Chunya (TSC 39 [7.11], see also TSC 41 [7.26]). He told from his father's words, Vasily Ilyich Dzhenkoul, and that of his uncle Ivan Ilyich Dzhenkoul – possibly the brothers Burucha and Mugocha, Ed. – (by 1960, long dead): “In that place, the 7 wealthy brothers of Dzhenkoul grazed a herd of 600–700 head in those days. The brothers were rich, and that day the father went to meet deer at Ilimpo (to the north), the herd grazing between the Kimchu River and the river Polnoty (Churgim). In the upper reaches of the Polnoty river, there was a single storage facility (“12”, Fig. 2), and there was a second storage facility at the mouth of the Cheko (“13”, Fig. 2). There, where the first storage facility was (on 11

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

shattered glass (Fig. 3, red circles), e.g., TSC 14, 42, there were a few remarks about other types of damage. Izmail Ivanovich Sizykh said: “In some houses the frames fell out, the icons fell off the shelves, and at Stepan's grandfather the roof of the hut came down” (TSC 32 [10.28]). Also: “In the village of Panovo, the roof was torn off, the windows flew out” (TSC 39 [10.244]). In Kezhma, “the roofs were ripped from the barns” (TSC 42 [10.46]). And in Rozhkovo (near Sosnovka) “… one man had a roof demolished, a stove had been turned” (TSC 42 [10.99]). Early newspaper accounts reported that in Kirensk, “window glass shook”. We interpret this that glass was not broken (open circle in Fig. 3). An important observation is that along the upper reaches of the Nizhnaya Tunguska, there were few reports of glass breaking. From furthest south, in the village of Karelino, ~20 km from Kirensk, the account is from the Kirensk meteorological station chief G. Kulesh, who reports that peasants from Kirensk said they had a strong shaking of the ground, so that the houses had broken glass (TSC 57 [4.22]). There are no reports of injuries from broken glass. There are a few reports of people falling at these larger distances (Fig. 3), and many reports of horses going down to their knees. In Kezhma, the grandfather of Anastasia Griogryevna Bryukhanova fell unconscious after being “thrown off by the air” (TSC 39 [10.240]). Frightened carpenters working in Kezhma fell backwards when the third wave hit, but only a meter and a half (TSC 57, frame 70–74 [6.22]). In Zaimka, Alexandra Karpovna Panova's brothers fell (TSC 42, no. 37). Yegor Suzdalev, interviewed in 1971 when he was 80 years old, was on a boat at a site 8 km from Kezhma on the Angara river (TSC 02, 20 [10.254]). He fell and dropped the bowler. In the village of Nizhne-Ilimsk: “One girl fell from the bench,” according to a 1908 letter by Mr. Kokoulin (Kirnov, 1949; TSC 57 [4.18]). In Nedokura, the door opened, glass in the window flew, and the old woman who lived with Ekaterina Nikitichna Kokorina fell off the stove (TSC 57, frame 89 [6.24]). Finally, on the Kan river near Kansk: “The blow was so strong that one of the workers, Yegor Stepanovich Vlasov (he now died), fell into the water”(TSC 57, frame 122). We suspect that some other reports of falls are more likely from (perhaps unrelated) earthquakes or fright, rather than the Tunguska airburst. A detailed eyewitness account of the shock wave passing over the Angara river came from Kezhemskoye, in a newspaper article in Krasnoyarets (July 13, 1908): “In the morning there was a noise as if from a strong wind. Immediately behind this came a terrible blow, accompanied by an earthquake, from which the buildings were literally shaken, and it was as if a strong blow had been made on the building by some huge log or heavy stone. The first blow was followed by the second, the same strength and third. Then – the interval of time between the first and third blows was accompanied by an unusual underground buzz, similar to the sound from the rails, over which a dozen trains allegedly passed at a time. And then within 5–6 min there was exactly the same artillery shooting: followed by about 50–60 strokes at short and almost the same intervals. Gradually, the blows became weaker towards the end. After a 1.5–2 min break after the end of the continuous “firing”, six more blows, like remote cannon shots, were heard, but still clearly audible and sensed by the earth shaking” (Krinov, 1949). The distinct artillery shooting sound is now familiar from the immediate aftermath of the Chelyabinsk airburst event (Popova et al., 2013).

Polnoty-Churgim), everything burned down: only ashes remained. The storage at the mouth of the Cheko was thrown over (carried away) by a whirlwind. At the top of Khushma, their herd was burned, the deer burned, only ashes remained. At the mouth of the Cheko, deer lay curled up, but they did not burn (they had been stunned and they died)”. The mouth of the Cheko is outside of the area where trees were singed by radiative heat of the meteor, shown as a bright area in Fig. 2 (Vorobyev et al., 1967; Vorobyev and Demin, 1976; Zhuravlev and Zigel, 1998). The western border is likely not as irregular as suggested. Also, the southern border of this area (based on Krinov, 1949) is uncertain due to later forest fires in the area. Probably about 200–500 deer in this area died or were scattered and did not come back. 3.7. Further from the epicenter: Accounts from Vanavara and the Chunya river The trading post of Vanavara (then just a few huts of fur traders – TSC 57 [6.3–6.4]) was at 65 km distance the nearest permanently inhabited site to the detonation (position “14” in Fig. 2). There are two detailed accounts from Semyen Borisovich Semyenov, a local peasant at Vanavara (Kulik, 1927), the first sent as a letter by his brother Afanasy Semyenov to Kulik in 1927 (TSC 57 [6.3]). The important text describing falling unconscious reads: “I was sitting on the porch facing north and at this time, when in a north-western direction a fiery ignition was formed. The fire made it impossible to sit from the heat, my shirt almost lit up on me. The redhot miracle was at least 2 versts (2.3 km) large. But it didn't stay bright long. I glanced at it briefly to judge its size and had to close my eyes immediately. When my eyes were closed, it became dark, and at the same time there was an explosion that threw me from the porch, a sazhen (1.8 m) or more. I fell unconscious, but not for long. I came to when there was a sound that shook all the houses as if they were being displaced. The windows in the houses were broken, the wind raised the soil in the middle of the square, and at the same time the lock strike of our barn door was broken, but the lock survived.” In 1930, Krinov also interviewed A. S. Kosolapova (TSC 57 [6.5]), the daughter of Semyenov, who was 19 at the time. “… (I) ran up to the house and saw my father S. B. Semyenov, unconscious, in front of the porch of the house. My mother, Marfa, and I brought him into the hut.” And further to this story, Evenki Ilya Potapovich (Lyuchetkan), born in 1876 from the Kurkogir clan (TSC 32 [7.42]), stayed at the Tetere river's intersection with the Podkamennaya Tunguska: “I ran to Vanavara, where the Russians lived. They, too, were frightened. In their houses, the windows were all broken and the furnaces were cracked … One of them was an old man sitting on a bench. The wind raised him and threw him to the ground. He suffered 3 h without memory” (Kulik, 1927). Opposite to Vanavara from the airburst event, along the Chunya river (position “10” in Fig. 2, and marked in the larger map of Fig. 3), Evenki Maria Vasilievna Dmitrieva, interviewed when she was 96 years old (TSC 41 [7.31]), was part of a camp with 6–7 large chums and about 50 people located at the mouth of the Kimchu river, north of the river itself, about 80 km from the impact site. She described how the wind blew off some of the chum's skin, but most remained standing. Deer did not scatter. In the direction of the site of the explosion, there was no pillar of fire or smoke, but everything happened high in the sky, where the sounds came from. After the explosions, the sky was red for a long time, like the red dawn, and this redness gradually drifted to the west, where it was long visible as a glow (Table 2).

4. Discussion 4.1. A butterfly pattern to the airburst The tree-fall is in the form of a butterfly-shaped pattern indicative of a cylindrical (non-spherical) shock wave (Fig. 2). In and around the tree fall area, the destruction of chums was also more prevalent in directions perpendicular to the meteoroid trajectory, notably along a stretch of the Taimura to the north (Λ, Fig. 3).

3.8. Wider area glass damage Fig. 3 shows the glass damage reported in the wider area away from the airburst. Damage was significant along the Angara river, where most houses had glass windows. Beside many reports of broken and 12

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

Fig. 3. Location map of eyewitness reports, with each symbol representing one or more accounts. Legend: Glass damage (filled red circle); glass rattled, not broken (o); chum destruction (Λ); heat and unconsciousness (orange X); Reports of people falling (person symbol). Positions of eyewitnesses according to Voznesensky (1925) (=x), Krinov (1966) (=+), Konenkin (1967) (=*), and Vasilyev et al. (1981) (=+). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

agreement with the Az ~99° direction of the tree-fall pattern (Fast et al., 1976). Eyewitnesses provide further constraints. In 1962, Konenkin (1967) followed by (Tsvetkov and Boyarkina, 1966; see TSC 63; 162), interviewed eyewitnesses who were located along the Nizhnaya (Lower) Tunguska, where it flows south to north, to determine where the meteor crossed the river, asking whether the meteor moved right to left, or left to right (TSC 55). This fact might be easiest to recall. They determined that the trajectory passed a few km south of Preobrazhenka (Az = 104 ± 1°), in good agreement with the tree fall pattern (Fig. 3). A similar study of observers along the Lena river (TSC 34) is broadly consistent with this result. From there, the meteor did not appear above 10° elevation. Down river from Kirensk, up to the first significant turn right (Fig. 3) at Spoloshino, it moved from right to left. The trajectory was steep in villages from Mironovo to Korshunovo further down river. Then there is a lack of observers for some 230 km between Korshunovo and Vitim. There were no villages in this area and the view was blocked by mountains to the north. Vitim, where the trajectory would have been very steep (Fig. 3), was also shielded from viewing most of the meteor path by mountains up to 9° elevation in the north and west (TSC 162). The butterfly-shape of the damage puts some constraints on the elevation of the meteor trajectory. Even in an extended energy

The pattern of glass damage (red dots in Fig. 3) reflects the behavior of the shockwave at larger distances from the source. The relative lack of glass damage in the upper Nizhnaya Tunguska region, compared to the widespread damage along a section of the Angara river, is consistent with the airburst having been stronger in directions perpendicular to the meteoroid trajectory, but might also just reflect the lower population density along that river. The airburst was still relatively strong at distant Kansk (~635 km from the epicenter) and Tayshet 145 km east from Kansk, but not so much noticed in the town of Krasnoyarsk (Fig. 3). There are about 16 accounts from an area within 30 km from Kansk, a focus of Kulik's early investigations. Half reported shaking of the ground, doors, windows, window shutters, and lamps. One worker fell into the river. About 15 km east of Kansk, 2 km from the “Lyalka” (Ilansky) station, the train number 92 was famously stopped by machinist Gryaznov frightened by the rumble and shaking of the air (Kulik, 1935; TSC 57, frame 124; TSC 68). In Tayshet, buildings and telegraph poles shook, telegraph wires were swinging, doors were slamming, and objects fell on the floor (TSC 252 [4]). Sounds appear to have been loudest in azimuth directions from the source to 220° and 175° (Epiktetova, 1998). The reports of glass damage are too sparse to independently constrain the azimuth direction of the meteor (Fig. 3), but results are in 13

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

4.2. Energy deposition profile

Table 3 Most likely trajectory and orbit of the Tunguska meteoroid from visual observations. Parameter

Value ( ± 1σ)

Unit

Date (Gregorian) UT (Universal Time) λo (Solar Longitude) Az (Azimuth from North) h (Elevation) Hb (Beginning Altitude) ϕb (Latitude) λb (Longitude) R. A. (App. Right Ascension) Decl. (App. Declination) V∞ (Apparent Entry Speed) a (Semi-major Axis) q (Perihelion Distance) e (Eccentricity) i (Inclination) ω (Argument of Perihelion) Ω (Node) Π (Longitude of Perihelion)

1908-06-30 00:14 ± 01 99.0761 ± 0.0001 104 ± 1 25 ± 5 (110)¶ 60.3 ± 0.2 106.2 ± 0.8 91 ± 3 +13 ± 5 27 ± 2† (1.7–2.7)† 0.50 ± 0.05 0.76 ± 0.07 12 ± 5 259 ± 7 279.08 ± 0.03 178 ± 7

yyyy-mm-dd hh:mm ± mm °(J2000) ° ° km °N °E °(J2000) °(J2000) km/s AU AU -.° (J2000) ° (J2000) ° (J2000) ° (J2000)

Large meteoroids such as Tunguska, penetrate deep into the atmosphere and are thought to be severely crushed by aerodynamic stresses before they begin to deform, expand laterally, increase their surface area, and aerobrake under the action of pressure gradients in the air flow. If the size of the meteoroid is larger than 30–40-m, the crushed body can be treated as a strength-less object that behaves as a liquid (Svetsov et al., 1995). For reasonable entry conditions, Artemieva and Shuvalov (2016, 2007) calculated that the meteoroid began to deform at an altitude of ~35 km. At the same time, Rayleigh-Taylor and KelvinHelmholtz instabilities were growing. At an altitude of 20 km, the body's diameter had doubled, the shape was strongly perturbed, and the meteoroid disintegrated. At 15 km, the object transformed into a debris jet, then into a gaseous jet consisting of vapor and shock-heated air. The projectile decelerated only after it was total evaporated, and it is at this time that the kinetic energy is mainly deposited. The temperature of the vapor-air mixture is several thousand degrees. How the disintegration of the meteoroid manifests is perhaps not fully understood. In the 1960's, several eyewitnesses drew remarkably similar drawings of the Tunguska meteor, with two providing a sequence of events. Several drawings show a blob with tail and something in a thin line ahead of it (Fig. 1). After some time had passed, that blob was described as consisting of two lobes. This has been interpreted as the object consisting of two meteoroids, not understanding how the blob could be visible > 1 min (e.g., Longo, 2007). To us, these drawings are reminiscent of the late stages of the Chelyabinsk meteor. In that event, the main disruption left a cloud of glowing debris, from which surviving fragments emerged that penetrated to lower elevation, rapidly slowing down before falling apart. In the case of Chelyabinsk, one of the fragments survived to the ground and impacted the frozen surface of Lake Chebarkul. The debris cloud continued to move down along the track more slowly than the surviving fragments, from 29.7 km to 26.2 ( ± 0.7) km altitude, before being stopped by the atmosphere. After it had stopped, billows developed. The buoyancy of the cylinder of hot gas caused it to split in two billowing structures (Popova et al., 2013). With this in mind, we arranged the drawings in Fig. 1 in what could have been the chronological sequence of events. The drawings confirm that, like Chelyabinsk, Tunguska had a complicated fragmentation history, which resulted in energy deposition spread out along the trajectory. The blob with thinner trail emerging from it suggests that an intense energy deposition occurred at an intermediate part of the trajectory, a disruption, with at least some material surviving to lower elevation. In the case of Chelyabinsk, the landscape briefly turned red from the glowing debris immediately after peak brightness (Popova et al., 2013). A similar phenomenon may have occurred at Tunguska. In the case of Tunguska, the debris cloud would have slowed down more gradually, creating a fiery path over a relatively long distance when the light faded. Indeed, a pillar, a forked pillar, or two pillars were seen from quite different perspectives: from Yarkino on the Angara river (TSC 06), at Panovo (upwards 7–8 m, 1 m wide, TSC 14), in the Ust-Ilimsky district (TSC 14; 57) and along the Nizhnaya Tunguska (TSC 35; 55). An account collected by Voznesensky from Nizhne-Ilimsk said (TSC 57, frame 49): “…; approaching even closer to the ground, this ball looked like two pillars of fire.” A newspaper account in 1908 describing it as (TSC 50): “… a huge flame broke up, as it were, bifurcating the sky. The radiance was so strong that it was reflected in the rooms, the windows of which are facing north.” The pillar cooled down in a few seconds and left a black smoke. Alternatively, the fiery pillar has been interpreted as a plume developing upwards from the impact site along the meteor path (Vasilyev, 1998; Boslough and Gladstone, 1997; Artemieva and Shuvalov, 2016). Bright nights seen over Europe following the event (Krinov, 1966) implies that Tunguska deposited aerosols at large heights in the

Note: ¶Assumed. †It is assumed that the semi-major axis falls within this ± 1-σ near Earth asteroid population dispersion.

deposition, entry angles > 50° would create a more circular tree-fall pattern. The butterfly patterns of the tree fall and glass damage suggest an entry angle < < 50°, with angles < 30° creating elongated wings like Chelyabinsk (Artemieva et al., 2017). If the angle was as low as 10°, it would have been at ~120 km altitude over Vitim and visible up to 27 s, but reports of long duration, in our opinion, refer to the white dust train at the disruption site, not the meteor itself. A lower inclination angle also shifts the effective airburst altitude for given size higher up (Shuvalov et al., 2017). Finally, the lower angles < 15° are inconsistent with good visibility of the meteor in the Angara river area. At 20°, the meteoroid would have been at ~120 km over Preobrazhenka and visible for at most 14 s, perhaps still consistent with the eyewitness accounts that describe duration. A shallower angle would have made the meteor more likely to be visible from Vitim. We adopted an elevation h = 25 ± 5° (1σ uncertainty). The corresponding radiant coordinates are given in Table 3. Like Chelyabinsk, the Tunguska meteoroid came from the direction of the helion source near the Sun (Sun-centered ecliptic longitude ~354°, Latitude ~−13°) in the early morning hours. The helion source consists of short ~3–5-y orbiting asteroids (e.g., Kulik, 1939; Krinov, 1949; Sekanina, 1983, 1998; Chyba et al., 1993) or Jupiter Family comets with 5–6 y orbital period (e.g., Fesenkov, 1962, 1966; Kresák, 1978; Bronshten, 2000b). They approach in the plane of the planets from a ~90° angle to the direction of motion of Earth around the Sun (Jenniskens, 2006). This makes it likely that Tunguska was not the Long Period comet or Halley-type comet suggested by earlier more southerly approach trajectories from the apex direction of Earth's motion (Astapovich, 1935; Whipple, 1934). A fraction of 68% (1σ) of near-Earth asteroids of absolute magnitude H1 < 18 have a semi-major axis a = 1.7–2.7 AU (Emel'yanenko et al., 2011). This semi-major axis range would correspond to an entry speed of V∞ = 27 ± 2 km/s given the adopted azimuth (104 ± 1°) and elevation (25 ± 5°) of the trajectory, and results in the orbital elements listed in Table 3. A relatively high entry speed (i.e., > 15 km/ s) is consistent with the high angular velocity implied by some visual accounts, e.g. from I. N. Kudryavtsev in Alexandrovka (“It flew very quickly”) and Ye. Sarychev in Kansk (“flying rapidly”) (Krinov, 1966). Results fall within the broad range of possible solutions presented in Bronshten (1999) and Jopek et al. (2008).

14

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

atmosphere. The sightings suggest that noctilucent clouds formed, which occur at altitudes of 76–85 km when local temperatures drop below −120 °C. They are made visible on the northern hemisphere in June by scattering of sunlight, the sun being above the local horizon. They require condensation nuclei such as dust to condense ambient water. Models show that gas flow upwards along the trajectory would have formed a plume if the entry angle was higher than ~20° (Artemieva and Shuvalov, 2016). To be responsible for the bright nights, the plume would need to have extended all along the path of the fireball. In the case of Chelyabinsk, where no plume developed, some meteoric dust was deposited as high as 80 km (but most at 50–26 km) altitude and this material subsequently dispersed (Popova et al., 2013). Abundant dust was detected at 25–45 km altitude around the globe (Gorkavyi et al., 2013). Tunguska may have also deposited meteoric dust at high altitudes early in flight, raising the question whether it is necessary that a plume did form. A thin dust train was seen along the meteor path a long time after atmospheric entry, but no eyewitness accounts clearly point to gas flowing up along the meteor path and expanding into a plume of meteoric dust above 50 km altitude. If it did not, this would also favor a relatively low < 30° entry angle.

and entry speed 27 km/s. Very similar results are obtained for different densities (1000 and 3320 kg/m3) and correspondingly larger meteoroid diameters (64 and 43 m, respectively). In this model, the thermal exposure in Vanavara is about 7 J/cm2, which is enough to feel the heat close to the pain threshold (6.5 J/cm2). It is smaller than the threshold of skin blistering (10–20 J/cm2) (Mannan, 2005). Indeed, eyewitnesses in Vanavara reported feeling heat to the point of wanting to tear off clothing, but did not report burns. Further from the epicenter, the overpressure along the Angara river was ~500–1000 Pa, consistent with the glass damage that was widely reported. When comparing results to Chelyabinsk, one needs to keep in mind that windows were in general smaller than those that broke during the Chelyabinsk airburst event and they were mounted differently, suggesting the energy may have been slightly higher than in the model shown, e.g., ~15 Mt Compared to Chelyabinsk, Tunguska had a factor of four larger radial distances out to which glass was damaged. If we take into account the smaller windows of houses c.a. 1908, compared to the larger school windows at Chelyabinsk, this could be as large as a factor of 5.

4.3. A model of overpressure and thermal radiation

From the known record in Section 3, we can be fairly certain that there were at least three casualties as a direct result of the Tunguska impact. It is possible that there were more. After carefully studying the location of the various witnesses (Fig. 2), we suspect that shaman Uiban on Lakura ridge was in the tree fall area. Ul'kigo and Ivan were likely just outside the tree fall area. Akulina's report does include falling trees, but she describes entering the tree-fall area later, which would suggest there were trees falling just outside the Longo et al. (2005) tree fall contour (Vasilyev et al., 1981). Others in the tree-fall area included the Podyga sons, Ivan Ivanovich Aksenov, and perhaps also members of the Dzhenkoul family. The groups with Vasily Nikitich Tarkichenok and Tatyana Nikolaevna Livesherova may also have been in the tree fall area. Counting the number of people and chums mentioned in the accounts implies there were at least 30 people in or near the tree-fall area. The reported deaths were from the airburst throwing a person (Ivan), from shock and stress (the father of Ul'kigo), and possibly from fires created on Lakura Ridge (Uiban). That location is well away from the radiant area (Fig. 2). There are several ways how those fires could have started, including from the fireplace inside the destroyed chums at a time when people had fallen unconscious. Inside the tree fall line, conditions were quite perilous. Many, if not all, people in the area fell unconscious for hours or days. In some cases, falling unconscious coincided with the arrival of the airburst, suggesting some form of concussion was responsible. Others may have fallen unconscious because of smoke inhalation, with combustible materials burning nearby, or fainted from shock. Most people inside and near the tree-fall area were protected by their tent from UV and IR radiation exposure from the meteor. Only Evenki Ivan Ivanovich Aksenov was outside, carving up a kill, when the bolide struck. He was facing down to the elk, perhaps away from the meteor, so he may not have noticed the meteor itself except for how it illuminated the forest. He first reported the red glow (possibly from the debris cloud), then fell unconscious when the airburst hit. There is no word of personal injuries sustained from the UV and optical radiation. However, based on the tree scarring 9 km from the epicenter and his own distance, Aksenov barely escaped first-degree burns on exposed skin (Florenskiy, 1963). Direct radiation would also have affected the Dzhenkoul family members if they were outside their chums, but that doesn't seem to have been the case (Fig. 2). There were no reports of injuries from broken glass far away from the tree fall area. One person was blown off his feet and fell unconscious in Kezhma, and several other people reported falls (Fig. 3). There were

4.4. Resulting injuries and casualties

Many previous models have calculated the overpressure in the treefall area, the ensuing maximum wind speed, and the thermal exposure on the ground, based on data from nuclear explosions (Collins et al., 2005) and numerical models of asteroid impacts (e.g., Chyba et al., 1993; Svetsov, 1996; Korobeinikov et al., 1998; Hills and Goda, 1998; Shuvalov and Artemieva, 2002; Shuvalov et al., 2013, 2016; Boslough and Crawford, 2008; Artemieva and Shuvalov, 2016). Best results were obtained for an initial kinetic energy in the range from 3 to 5 Mt (Boslough and Crawford, 2008), or up to 10–50 Mt (Svetsov and Shuvalov, 2008). Most recent estimates appear to settle around 10–15 Mt (Shuvalov et al., 2017). Overpressure in the tree fall area was in the range 10–30 kPa, which corresponds to a wind velocity ~25–65 m/s (Glasstone and Dolan, 1977). According to Glasstone and Dolan, minimal damage occurs at wind speeds below 25 m/s and severe damage (90%) at wind speeds exceeding 55–65 m/s. Thermal exposure in the 10-km area near the epicenter was sufficient to cause tree charring and ignite fires. Based on a 20 Mt nuclear explosion, dry rotted wood, leaves and grass can be ignited if the thermal exposure exceeds 30–40 J/cm2, and fir plywood is ignited if larger than 80 J/cm2 (Glasstone and Dolan, 1977), suggesting the thermal exposure exceeded ~60 J/cm2 in the central zone. The shape of the airburst shockwave on the ground depends on the entry angle and the duration over which the energy is deposited. The results depend on the energy deposition profile in the atmosphere (e.g., Svetsov, 1996; Lyne et al., 1996; Liu, 1978; Johnston and Stern, 2019). Artemieva et al. (2017) modeled the airburst for ~60 different scenarios of energy loss in the atmosphere, initial meteoroid size and density, entry angle and entry speed. Svetsov and Shuvalov (2018) calculated the corresponding thermal radiation fields. Applying this to the glass damage area requires extrapolation, because modeling results are more reliable for overpressures exceeding 2–3%, i.e. larger than 2–3 kPa. The results were used to derive simplified scaling relations (Popova et al., 2017; Glazachev et al., 2018). For example, at large distances from the point-source deposition of kinetic energy (E), the pressure contour radius (r) scales with r/ E0.333 = constant. However, if the energy deposition results in a cylindrical shockwave, the pressure contour radius scales with r/ E0.44 = constant (Glazachev et al., 2018). One possible solution that describes both the tree-fall area and the glass damage area is shown in Fig. 4, based on an initial kinetic energy of 12 Mt, density 2000 kg/m3 (51-m diameter asteroid) entry angle 25°, 15

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

Fig. 4. As Fig. 3, overlain with airburst model (12 Mt, 2000 kg/m3, 25° entry angle, 27 km/s entry speed). Contours correspond to (from dark to light): 1500, 1000, 700 and 500 Pa overpressure.

falls, possibly because of cultural factors in reporting, or because windows were smaller and the population density was much smaller than in Chelyabinsk.

indications of distress from shock, stress and panic. The strong heat from the meteor and the debris cloud was felt out to about 80 km from the epicenter.

Acknowledgements 5. Conclusions We thank A. A. Sirina and an anonymous reviewer for a careful review, E. Stern for guidance, and guest editor D. K. Robertson for helpful comments. This work was funded by NASA's Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO) and in part by the Russian Science Foundation № 16-17-00107.

At least three people passed away as a direct consequence of the Tunguska airburst event. All resided near or just outside the tree-fall contour. The bad injuries and casualties were caused by: (1) A direct hit from the shockwave, throwing the person against a tree and causing him to break his arm, leading to infection; (2) Shock and exhaustion from the circumstances created in the event; (3) Unknown, but possibly due to fire and falling unconscious. There were at least 30 people in this area. Many fell unconscious for a short or longer period of time. There were no reports of sunburn as most people were inside their chum when the meteor appeared. Effects of strong winds were somewhat directional, stronger towards a section of the Angara river and direction of Kansk, and less so in the upper reaches of the Nizhnaya Tunguska. Chums lost their cover out to about 170 km from the epicenter. Glass was broken about 400 km away. The shockwave damaged windows over a distance 4–5 times larger than Chelyabinsk. There were no injuries reported from glass damage or

References Anderson, D., Orekhova, N., 2002. The Suslov legacy: the story of one family's struggle with shamanism. Sibirica 2, 88–112. Andreev, G.V., 1990. Was Tunguska caused by an Apollo asteroid? In: Lagerkvist, C.I., Rickman, H., Lindblad, B.A., Lindgren, M. (Eds.), Asteroids, Comets, Meteors III. Uppsala Astronomical Observatory, Uppsala, pp. 489–492. Artemieva, N., Shuvalov, V., 2007. 3D effects of Tunguska event on the ground and in atmosphere. LPI Contribution No. 1338, i.d.. 1537. . Artemieva, N.A., Shuvalov, V.V., 2016. From Tunguska to Chelyabinsk via Jupiter. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 44, 37–56. Artemieva, N.A., Shuvalov, V.V., Svetsov, V.V., 2017. Airbursts: We Will Shock You! 80th Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society 2017, LPI Contrib. No. 1987. (abstract).

16

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

Krinov, E.L., 1963. The Tunguska and Sikhote-Alin meteorites. In: Middlehurst, B.M., Kuiper, G.P. (Eds.), The Moon, Meteorites, and Comets. Univ. of Chicago, Chicago, pp. 208–234. Krinov, E.L., 1966. Giant Meteorites. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 125–265. Kulik, L.A., 1921. The lost Filimonovo meteorite of 1908. Mirovedeniye (Cosmography) 10, 74–75. Kulik, L.A., 1922. Research into the lost Filimonovo meteorite of 1908. Mirovedeniye (Cosmography) 11, 79–80. Kulik, L.A., 1927. On the question of the place of the fall of the Tunguska meteorite in 1908. In: DAN U. S. S. R. pp. 399–402 (translated in: Pop. Astron. 43, 596–599). Kulik, L.A., 1935. Preliminary results from the meteorite expeditions in the decennium 1921–1931. Pop. Astron. 44, 215–220. Kulik, L.A., 1939. Results on the Tunguska meteorite, collected up until 1939. In: Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (Reports of the Academy of Science of the U. S. S. R.). 22. pp. 520–524. Kulik, L.A., 1940. Meteorite expedition on Podkamennaya Tunguska in 1939. In: Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (Reports of the Academy of Science of the U. S. S. R.). 28. pp. 597–601. Kuvshinnikov, V.M., Kolobkova, G.P., 1963. Problema Tungusskogo Meteorita (Problems of the Tunguska Meteorite). Tomsk University, Tomsk, pp. 159–162. La Paz, L., 1948. The energy of the Podkamennaya Tunguska, Siberia, meteoric fall. Pop. Astron. 56, 330–331. Levin, B., 1954. The problem of the speed of the trajectory of the Tunguska meteorite. Meteoritics 11, 132–136. Liu, V.C., 1978. A test of the comet hypothesis of the Tunguska meteor fall: nature of the meteor 'thermal' explosion paradox. Geophys. Res. Lett. 5, 309–312. Longo, G., 2007. The Tunguska event. In: Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society. Springer Verlag, New York, pp. 303–330. Longo, G., Di Martino, M., Andreev, G., Anfinogenov, J., Budaeva, L., Kovrigin, E., 2005. A new unified catalogue and a new map of the 1908 tree fall in the site of the Tunguska cosmic body explosion. In: Asteroid-Comet Hazard 2005. Institute of Applied Astronomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia, pp. 222–225. Lyne, J.E., Tauber, M., Fought, R., 1996. An analytical model of the atmospheric entry of large meteors and its application to the Tunguska event. J. Geophys. Res. 101, 23207–23212. Malinina, E.V., Pilyavskaya, O.I., Zabozlaeva, I.V., Kolmogorova, V.V., 2014. Clinical profile of stress disorders in children affected by the fall of the meteorite in the Chelyabinsk region. Russ. J. Psychiatry 3, 47–51. Mannan, S., 2005. Lee's Loss Prevention in the Process Industries: Hazard Identification, Assessment and Control, 3rd edition. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann (3680 pp.). Mathias, D.L., Wheeler, L.F., Dotson, J.L., 2017. A probabilistic asteroid impact risk model: assessment of sub-300 m impacts. Icarus 289, 106–119. Mazin, A.I., 1984. Traditional Beliefs and Practices Evekov-Orochenov. Nauka, Novosibirsk (200 pp.). Menges, K.H., 1983. Materials on the Shamanism of the Evenki-Tunguses of the Middle and Lower Tunguska, Collected and Recorded by I. M. Suslov 1926/1928. Verlag Otto Harrossowitz, Wiesbaden (131 pp. in German). Nemtchinov, I., Svetsov, V.V., Shuvalov, V.V., 2008. Main factors of hazards due to comets and asteroids. In: Adushkin, V.V., Nemtchinov, I.V. (Eds.), Catastrophic events Caused by Cosmic Objects. Springer, pp. 1–89. Obruchev, S.V., 1925. About the place of the 1908 Great Khatanga meteorite fall. Mirovedeniye (Cosmography) 14, 38–40. Plekhanov, G.F., 1963. Preliminary results from 2 years of comprehensive independent expeditions on the study of the Tunguska meteorite. In: Problems of the Tunguska Meteorite (Problema Tungusskogo Meteorita). Tomsk University, Tomsk, pp. 3–21. Popova, O.P., Jenniskens, P., Emel'yanenko, V., Kartashova, A., Biryukov, E., Khaibrakhmanov, S., Shuvalov, V., Rybnov, Y., Dudorov, A., Grokhovsky, V.I., Badyukov, D.D., Yin, Q.-Z., Gural, P.S., Albers, J., Granvik, M., Evers, L.G., Kuiper, J., Kharlamov, V., Solovyov, A., Rusakov, Y.S., Korotkiy, S., Serdyuk, I., Korochantsev, A.V., Yu, Larionov M., Glazachev, D., Mayer, E.M., Gisler, G., Gladkovsky, S.V., Wimpenny, J., Snanborn, M.E., Yamakawa, A., Verosub, K., Rowland, D.J., Roeske, S., Botto, N.W., Friedrich, J.M., Zolensky, M., Le, L., Ross, D., Ziegler, K., Nakamura, T., Ahn, I., Lee, J.I., Zhou, Q., Li, Z.-H., Liu, Y., Tan, G.-Q., Hiroi, T., Sears, D., Weinstein, I.A., Vokhmintsev, A.S., Ishchenko, A.V., Schmitt-Kopplin, P., Hertkorn, N., Nagao, K., Haba, M.K., Komatsu, M., Mikouchi, T., the Chelyabinsk Airburst Consortium, 2013. Chelyabinsk airburst, damage assessment, meteorite recovery, and characterization. Science 342, 1069–1073. Popova, O.P., Glazachev, D.O., Podobnaya, E.D., Svetsov, V.V., Shuvalov, V.V., 2017. Radiation of large meteoroids decelerated in the Earth's atmosphere. held July 23–28, 2017 in Santa Fe, New Mexico In: 80th Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society, LPI Contribution No., 1987, id.6376. Rodimova, O.B., Sapozhnikova, V., Fazliev, A.Z., 2008. Electronic collection of documents related to the problem of the Tunguska phenomenon. Bull. Tomsk State Univ. Math. Mech. 3, 103–113. Rubtsov, V., 2009. The Tunguska Mystery. Springer Verlag, New York (318 pp.). Rumpf, C.M., Lewis, H.G., Atkinson, P.M., 2017. Population vulnerability models for asteroid impact risk assessment. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 52, 1082–1102. Sekanina, Z., 1983. The Tunguska event: no cometary signature in evidence. Astron. J. 88, 1382–1414. Sekanina, Z., 1998. Evidence for asteroidal origin of the Tunguska objecct. Planet. Space Sci. 46, 191–204. Shapley, H., 1930. Flight from Chaos. In: A Survey of Material Systems From Atoms to Galaxies. Mc Graw Hill, New York. Shirokogorov, S.M., 1929. The Social Organization of the Northern Tungus. Commercial Press, Shanhai (427 pp.).

Astapovich, I.S., 1934. Air waves caused by the fall of the meteorite on 30th June, 1908, in central Siberia. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 60 (257), 498–504. Astapovich, I.S., 1935. New investigations of the fall of the Great Siberian meteorite of June 30, 1908. Priroda (Nature) 9, 70–72. Astapovich, I.S., 1951. The great Tunguska meteorite. Priroda 2 (23–32 and 3), 13–23. Baum, S.D., 2018. Uncertain human consequences in asteroid risk analysis and the global catastrophe threshold. Nat. Hazards. https://doi.org/10.1007/211069-018-3419-4. Boslough, M.B.E., Crawford, D.A., 2008. Low-altitude airbursts and the impact threat. Int. J. Impact Eng. 35, 1441–1448. Boslough, M.B.E., Gladstone, G.R., 1997. An impact plume model for atmospheric holes in the FUV dayglow. Geophys. Res. Lett. 24, 3117–3120. Boyarkina, A.P., Demin, D.V., Zotkin, I.T., Fast, W.G., 1964. Estimation of the blast wave of the Tunguska meteorite from the forest destruction. Meteoritics 24, 112–128. Bronshten, V.A., 1999. Trajectory and orbit of the Tunguska meteorite revisited. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 34, A137–A143. Bronshten, V.A., 2000a. The Tunguska Meteorite: History of the Investigations. Publ. Seljanov, A. D., Moscow. Bronshten, V.A., 2000b. On the nature of the Tunguska meteorite. Astron. Astrophys. 359, 777–779. Chyba, C.F., Thomas, P.J., Zahnle, K.J., 1993. The 1908 Tunguska explosion; atmospheric disruption of a stony asteroid. Nature 361, 40–44. Collins, G.S., Melosh, H.J., Marcus, R.A., 2005. Earth impact effects program: A webbased computer program for calculating the regional environmental consequences of a meteoroid impact on earth. Meteorit. Planet. Sci. 40, 817–840. Emel'yanenko, V.V., Naroenkov, S.A., Shustov, B.M., 2011. Distribution of near-earth objects. Sol. Syst. Res. 45, 498–503. Epiktetova, L.E., 1998. TCB Trajectory on the basis of sound phenomena described by eye witnesses. In: 90th anniversary of the Tunguska problem. An international conference held at Krasnoyarsk, Russia, June 30–July 2, 1998, (abstract). Farinella, P., Foschini, L., Froeschlé, Ch., Gonczi, R., Jopek, T.J., Longo, G., Michel, P., 2001. Probable asteroidal origin of the Tunguska cosmic body. Astron. Astrophys. 377, 1081–1097. Fast, V.G., 1967. Statistical analysis of the Tunguska wood falling. In: Problema Tungusskogo Meteorita (Problems of the Tunguska Meteorite) 2. pp. 40–61. Fast, V.G., Barannik, A.P., Razin, S.A., 1976. On the direction field of trees flattening in region of the Tunguska meteorite fall. In: Questions of meteoritics (Voprosy meteoritiki). Tomsk University Press, Tomsk, pp. 132–143. Fesenkov, V.G., 1962. On the cometary nature of the Tunguska meteorite. Sov. Astron. 5, 441–451. Fesenkov, V.G., 1966. A study of the Tunguska meteorite fall. Sov. Astron. 10, 195–213. Florenskiy, K.P., 1963. Preliminary results from the 1961 combined Tunguska meteorite expedition. Meteor-Forschung 23, 3–37. Gel'fand, B.E., Sil'nikov, M.V., 2002. High Explosive Effects of Explosions. Poligon, St. Peterburg (272 pp.). Gi, N., Brown, P., Aftosmis, M., 2018. The frequency of window damage caused by bolide airbursts: a quarter century case study. MAPS 53, 1413–1431. Glasstone, S., Dolan, P.J., 1977. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C. (653 pp.). Glazachev, D.O., Podobnaya, E.D., Popova, O.P., Artemieva, N.A., Shuvalov, V.V., 2018. Scaling relations for shock wave effects from large meteoroids decelerated in the Earth's atmosphere. In: 81th Annual Meeting of the Meteoritical Society, Moscow, (abstract). Gorkavyi, N., Rault, D.F., Newman, P.A., Silva, A.M., Dudorov, A.E., 2013. New statospheric dust belt due to Chelyabinsk bolide. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 4728–4733. Hills, J.G., Goda, M.P., 1998. Damage from the impacts of small asteroids. Planet. Space Sci. 46, 219–229. Huang, M.W., Lo, P.Y., Cheng, K.S., 2010. Objective assessment of sunburn and minimal erythema doses: comparison of noninvasive in vitro measuring techniques after UVB irradiation. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process 2010, 483562. https://doi.org/10.1155/ 2010/483562. Hughes, D.W., 1976. Tunguska revisited. Nature 259, 626–627. Ivanov, K.G., 1963. The height of the explosion of the Tunguska meteorite. Sov. Astron. 7, 251–252. Jankowski, K.D., 1960. On disappearing traces of the Tunguska catastrophe. In: Knowledge-Force, No. 2, pp. 6–8. Jenniskens, P., 2006. Meteor Showers and their Parent Comets. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. (790 pp.). Johnston, C.O., Stern, E.C., 2019. A model for thermal radiation from the Tunguska airburst. Icarus (this issue). Jopek, T.J., Froeschlé, C., Gonczi, R., Dybczynski, P.A., 2008. Searching for the parent of the Tunguska cosmic body. Earth Moon Planet. 102, 53–58. Kartashova, A., Popova, O.P., Jenniskens, P., et al., 2014. Eye-witness interviews on the Chelyabinsk airburst. In: Gyssens, M., Roggemans, P. (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Meteor Conference 2013, pp. 189–192. Kartashova, A.P., Popova, O.P., Emel'yanenko, V.V., Jenniskens, P., Glazachev, D.O., Podobnaya, E.D., Skripnik, A. Ya, 2018. Studies of Chelyabinsk event aspects by eye witness interviews. Planet. Space Sci. 160, 107–114. Konenkin, V.G., 1967. Eyewitness reports on the 1908 Tunguska meteorite. In: Tronov, L.V. (Ed.), The Problem of the Tunguska Meteorite. Tomsk Gos. Univ, Tomsk, pp. 31–35. Korobeinikov, V.P., Shurshalov, L.V., Vlasov, V.I., Semenov, I.V., 1998. Complex modelling of the Tunguska catastrophe. Planet. Space Sci. 46, 231–244. Kresák, L., 1978. The Tunguska object: A fragment of comet Encke? Bull. Astron. Inst. Czechoslovakia 29, 129–134. Krinov, E.L., 1949. Tunguska meteorite. Publ. USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow. Krinov, E.L., 1960. Principles of Meteoritics. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 120–137.

17

Icarus 327 (2019) 4–18

P. Jenniskens et al.

analysis of the physical, chemical, optical and historical impacts of the 1908 Tunguska meteor fall. Icarus 50, 1–52. Vasiliev, N.V., 1960. In the Footsteps of the Tunguska Disaster. Tomsk University Press, Tomsk University (157 pp.). Vasilyev, N.V., 1998. The Tunguska meteorite problem today. Planet. Space Sci. 46 (2), 129–150. Vasilyev, N.V., Kovalevsky, A.F., Razin, S.A., Epiktetova, L.E., 1981. Eyewitness testimonies of the Tunguska fall. Tomsk Scientific Center of the SB RAS. State Archives of the Tomsk Region, and the Institute of Informatics Systems of the SB RAS, Tomsk (304 pp. Online at. http://tunguska.tsc.ru/ru/. Vorobyev, V.A., Demin, D.V., 1976. New Results on the Thermal Damage of Larches in the Tunguska Meteorite Fall Region. In: Voprosy Meteoritiki (Problems in Meteoritics). Tomsk University Press, Tomsk, pp. 58–63. Vorobyev, V.A., Ilyin, A.G., Shkuta, B.L., 1967. A study of thermally damaged branches of larches that survived the Tunguska catastrophe. In: The Tunguska Meteorite Problem. Tomsk University Press, Tomsk, pp. 110–117. Voznesensky, A.V., 1925. The fall of a meteorite on 30 June, 1908, in the upper reaches of the river Khatanga. Mirovedeniye (Cosmography) 14, 25–38. Whipple, F.J.W., 1930. The great Siberian meteor and the waves it produced. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 56, 287–304. Whipple, F.J.W., 1934. On phenomena related to the great Siberian meteor. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 60, 505–513. Zenkin, G.M., Ilyin, A.G., 1964. About the light burn of trees in the region of the Tunguska meteorite explosion. Meteor-Forschung 24, 129–140. Zhuravlev, V.K., Zigel, F.Y., 1998. The Tunguska Miracle: History of Investigations of the Tunguska Meteorite. Basko Publishing House, Ekaterinburg (168 pp.). Zotkin, I.T., Chigorin, A.N., 1988. Determination of radiant of Tunguska meteorite according to eye-witness visual observations. In: Actual problems of meteoritics in Siberia. Nauka Press, Novosibirsk, pp. 85–95. Zotkin, I.T., Chigorin, A.N., 1991. Radiant of the Tunguska meteorite from visual observations. Sol. Syst. Res. 25, 459–464.

Shuvalov, V.V., Artemieva, N.A., 2002. Numerical modeling of Tunguska-like impacts. Planet. Space Sci. 50, 181–192. Shuvalov, V.V., Svetsov, V.V., Trubetskaya, I.A., 2013. An estimate for the size of the area of damage on the Earth's surface after impacts of 10–300-m asteroids. Sol. Syst. Res. 47 (4), 260–267. Shuvalov, V.V., Popova, O.P., Svetsov, V.V., Trubetskaya, I.A., Glazachev, D.O., 2016. Determination of the height of the “meteoric explosion”. Sol. Syst. Res. 50, 1–12. Shuvalov, V.V., Artemieva, N.A., Trubetskaya, I.A., Popova, O.P., 2017. Asteroid Apophis: evaluating the impact hazards of such bodies. Sol. Syst. Res. 51, 44–58. Sirina, A.A., 2006. Katanga Evenkis in the 20th Century and the Ordering of their Lifeworld. CCI Press, Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Edmonton, Northern HunterGatherers Research Series (222 pp.). Suslov, I.M., 1927. The search for the great meteorite of 1908. Mirovedeniye (Cosmography) 16, 13–18. Suslov, I.M., 1967. Interrogation of eyewitnesses of the Tunguska catastrophe in 1926. In: The problem of the Tunguska Meteorite, vol. 2. University Publishing House, Tomsk, pp. 21–30. Svetsov, V.V., 1996. Total ablation of the debris from the 1908 Tunguska explosion. Nature 383, 697–699. Svetsov, V., Shuvalov, V., 2008. Tunguska catastrophe of 30 June 1908. In: Adushkin, V.V., Nemtchinov, I.V. (Eds.), Catastrophic Events Caused by Cosmic Objects. Springer Verlag, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, pp. 227–267. Svetsov, V., Shuvalov, V., 2018. Thermal radiation and luminous efficiency of superbolides. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 503, 10–16. Svetsov, V.V., Nemtchinov, I.V., Teterev, A.V., 1995. Disintegration of large meteoroids in Earth's atmosphere: Theoretical models. Icarus 116, 131–153. Tsvetkov, V.I., Boyarkina, A.P., 1966. Results of interrogation of new eyewitnesses of the 1908 Tunguska meteorite fall. In: Fedynskii, V.V. (Ed.), Meteoric Material in the Earth's Atmopshere. Nauka, Moscow, pp. 81–92. Tugolukov, V.A., 1969. Horseback Rangers on Deer. The publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Turco, R.P., Toon, O.B., Park, C., Whitten, R.C., Pollack, J.B., Noerdliner, P., 1982. An

18