The so-called ‘London hammer’
In June 1936 (or 1934, according to some versions of the story), Max Hahn (1897-1989) and his wife Emma were walking along Red Creek, near their home in London (Texas, USA), when they spotted a rock nodule with a piece of wood sticking out from it. Some time later (perhaps in 1946 or 1947), their son George (born 1921) broke it open, to reveal a metallic hammerhead in the centre of the nodule, to which the wooden handle was attached. The creationist Carl Baugh (born 1936) purchased the object about 1983 and began to promote it as ‘the London Artifact’ at his Creation Evidence Museum, which opened in 1984.
On the Museum’s website, Baugh asks:
“If the artifact is truly from the Cretaceous time frame, where does this leave evolutionary theory, since man was not supposed to have evolved for another 100-million years or so? If the artifact is relatively recent, that means that the Cretaceous Hensell Sand formation from which it came is relatively young… Again, where does that leave evolutionary theory with its traditional dates for the Cretaceous formations?”
The Museum sells replicas of the hammer, one of its star exhibits.
One of the major problems with this object is that there is no evidence whatsoever that the nodule was ever part of the Red Creek’s geology, which is the Lower Cretaceous Hensel Sand Formation. These deposits are thought to be roughly 110-115 million years old. Having acquired the object in the early 1980s, Baugh promoted it as a ‘pre-Noachian’ artefact (in other words, dating from a time before the mythical Flood of Noah). However, it was soon pointed out by a geologist that minerals dissolved from ancient strata can harden around a recent object, making it look impressive to someone unfamiliar with geological processes. In fact, the style of the hammer would lead us to recognise it as nineteenth-century in date and of definitely American provenance.
Glen Kuban’s debunking of the ‘London hammer’
Has anyone ever done carbon dating on the organic handle? Although I’m inclined to believe it’s old compared to me, it ain’t ancient.
I doubt that anyone has tried and I suspect that, as it’s a star exhibit in a creationist museum, its owners won’t be inclined to submit it for dating. Creationists pooh pooh radiocarbon dating when it gives ancient results, claiming that it’s unreliable, but love it to give unexpectedly young results on supposedly ancient objects.
I agree totally with you keith.
Unlike say, granite, sandstone can form very quickly. Experiments showed you can grind up sandstone, mix it with water and pour it into shapes and voila, instant sandstone blocks. Dont try it at home though, the quartz powder in sandstone is very dangerous to your lungs.
Carbon dating is not particularly accurate on many time-scales. Easier would be to try and match tree rings to archival data.
Easiest would be to check the mineral types and attempt to replicate an action of enclosing an artifact into the rock.
Of course, without th ability or desire to incorporate new data into your world-view (a skill the vast majority of creationists seem to lack,) no evidence could be convincing enough to withdraw the speculations.
The thing I find striking about this artifact is that the hammer is not bound to the rock in any of the many places you would assume if it had been incorporated into the rock. In fact, it dosen’t look like it would be a major problem to replicate the artifact by the use of chisels, a drill, a hammerhead and a hammer handle….
The lack of provenance and in many cases the original artifacts themselves in so many of these cases sets alarms ringing. It’s so convenient for an unusual artifact to be unavailable for investigation….