Kamil crater in southern Egypt is a small desert impact structure whose origin has been established through field observations, recovered meteorites and laboratory work. Its importance is not that it remains an unexplained hole. It preserves evidence that helps researchers test how relatively small iron bodies survive passage through the atmosphere and excavate the ground. The distinction between identification and detailed reconstruction matters: a meteorite impact can be securely recognised while its precise date and entry history remain uncertain.
This account uses the original 2010 discovery report, the complete four-page 2011 Geology paper, the methods described in the later geophysical investigation, a 2016 research-team summary and the official meteorite catalogue. The discovery and expeditions happened in modern times. The impact itself was not witnessed and is not assigned the year of a satellite image, scientific publication or collected specimen.
From a satellite feature to a field investigation
The European Space Agency’s September 2010 account describes Vincenzo De Michele noticing the feature in Google Earth in 2008. A striking circle on a screen was a lead, not yet a complete physical explanation. De Michele contacted Mario Di Martino, and the work developed into a joint Egyptian–Italian investigation involving Luigi Folco and colleagues.
The original 2011 field paper distinguishes a preliminary February 2009 visit from the February 2010 geophysical expedition. Iron meteorite fragments were found around the feature. The subsequent surveys examined the crater, surrounding ejecta and subsurface structure together. Those observations transformed a remotely noticed feature into a testable impact site.
The crater’s name derives from Gebel Kamil, a regional topographic feature rather than a peak at the centre of the hole. The site lies in the East Uweinat area of southwestern Egypt. Its borderland setting should not be confused with a crater in neighbouring Sudan or with a generic “Libyan desert” location inferred from regional terminology.
The crater, fill and target rock
The 2010 Science report describes a roughly 45-metre structure with a raised rim. It also distinguishes the deeper crater floor from the material filling it. This is why summaries can give different depth figures without necessarily describing different craters: the visible depression and an inferred buried floor are different measurements.
Sandstone surrounds the crater. Its displaced blocks, pale ejecta and impact-related melted material supply evidence beyond the circular outline. A round feature alone would not identify the cause. The scientific account instead combines the deformation and excavated structure with the nearby iron material and signs of intense shock and heating. The physical identification rests on that combination.
The studies also describe an uneven distribution of ejected rock and meteorite fragments. Such patterns can constrain the impact direction and angle, but those values remain reconstructed parameters. They were not recorded by an instrument watching the incoming body. A diagram of an inferred trajectory therefore has a different evidential status from a mapped fragment position.
What the surveys measured
The methods section of the 2012 geological and geophysical investigation describes several complementary approaches. Differential GPS measured surface topography. Seismic refraction investigated shallow rock structure. Ground-penetrating radar examined the crater’s buried geometry, while magnetic measurements investigated the distribution of iron-bearing material.
Each method answers a different question. Surface heights do not directly reveal everything beneath the fill; a magnetic anomaly does not by itself provide an exposed meteorite that can be weighed. The investigators combined the observations and stated practical limits, including parts of the rim and steep walls where radar antennas could not be towed consistently. Reading the methods avoids converting a modelled subsurface quantity into a directly collected mass.
The meteorite name and the numbers
The Meteoritical Bulletin entry for Gebel Kamil gives an official meteorite name, an ungrouped iron classification, a 2009 find year and no observed fall. Its write-up dates the find to 19 February 2009 and describes thousands of fragments from the 2009 and 2010 work. “Gebel Kamil” names the meteorite; “Kamil” names the associated crater.
Collected mass, surface material identified in a survey, estimated debris still present and the original incoming mass are not interchangeable totals. The research papers explicitly distinguish these categories. Loss during atmospheric entry and fragmentation at impact mean that the object before entry cannot be equated simply with the pieces later found. A quoted tonnage should retain the category and assumptions that produced it.
How old is it?
The research team’s complete 2016 conference summary lists different age constraints: geomorphological evidence, an archaeological upper limit and a thermoluminescence range of 2000 BCE to 500 CE. These are not an exact calendar date. The 2011 paper also notes that the structure was already visible in 1972 Landsat imagery. That observation establishes its presence then; it does not date the impact to 1972.
The summary brings together crater geometry, projectile classification, impact melt and shock features. Its purpose is to encourage comparison between field evidence, experiments and numerical models. This is continuing research into the mechanics of an identified event, rather than a reason to reclassify the crater’s origin as unexplained whenever an estimate changes.
Assessment and map location
Outcome: Closed (Explained). The original studies identify a hypervelocity impact by the Gebel Kamil iron meteorite. That finding covers the crater’s physical origin. It does not supply a witnessed fall, a day-by-day ancient chronology or an independently observed entry trajectory. UKPX reviewed the listed original material; it did not reanalyse the specimens, rerun the impact models or audit every cited laboratory paper.
Map location: the pin is a rounded crater reference at 22.0183, 26.0875, derived from the 2011 paper’s 22°01′06″N, 26°05′15″E coordinates. It is not the specimen photograph’s location or a visitor entrance. The credited image shows a fragment identified by its photographer, not an in-situ expedition specimen independently authenticated by UKPX. Current access, collecting permission and travel conditions have not been verified; no public-visit designation is applied.