The London Artifact (Texas)

The so-called ‘London hammer’
The so-called ‘London hammer’

In June 1936, Max Edmond Hahn (1897-1989) and his wife Emma Zadie Hahn (née Pearl) (1899-1995) 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. It was sitting on a ledge by a waterfall on the river, not attached to any of the solid rocks around it. There are several areas where small waterfalls exist on Red Creek, the closest being about 10 km south-west of London. According to some versions of the story, the discovery took place in 1934; sometimes, Max is called Frank, for reasons unknown. Some time later (perhaps in 1946 or 1947), their son George (1921-2011) broke it open, to reveal a metallic hammerhead in the centre of the nodule, to which the wooden handle was attached. Part of the broken nodule has survived and has an unfossilised mollusc shell partly embedded in it (photograph here). Inside the nodule was a metallic hammerhead, to which the wooden handle was attached. The hammer was clearly of recent manufacture.

The London Artifact as museum display

That ought to have been the end of the story. A nineteenth-century quarryman or rockhound dropped a hammer near a waterfall on Red Creek. However, it came to the attention of the Young Earth creationist Carl Baugh (born 1936). It is unclear if Baugh was alerted to the hammer by an article by Walter Lang (1913-2004) in the Bible-Science Newsletter 21 (6), 14, ‘Modern hammer in Silurian rocks’, or vice versa. Baugh purchased the object around 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.

A nineteenth-century mason's hammer.
A nineteenth-century mason’s hammer. The resemblance to the “London Artifact” is unmistakable. [Source]
It was Baugh who dubbed the hammer the London Artifact, which means that all claims using this term go back ultimately to his authority. He is widely regarded with scorn, even by other creationists, for his promotion of dubious and even fraudulent objects. Baugh has tried to use the hammer to show that rock could form in a very short time (like Young Earth creationists everywhere, he ridiculously attributes the formation of the geological column to the effects of Noah’s flood), that people at the time of Noah were skilled metallurgists and that the Ordovician rock from which he claimed it had come could not be anything like as old as science asserts. He continues to promote objects that have long since been debunked. This includes the London Hammer, about which the Creation/Evolution Journal (5 (1) (Winter 1985), 46-7) devoted two pages to a rebuttal of Baugh’s claims by the anthropologist John R Cole. This was in the year after his Museum opened, yet he ignored the criticism for years. Instead, he continues to use it as evidence for high technology in the distant past and the relatively recent formation of much of the geological column (during the mythical flood of Noah). One of his principal selling points is the allegedly impossible composition of the iron in the hammerhead.

Walter Lang appears to be the first to claim that the hammer had been studied by metallurgists at a laboratory in Columbus, which has widely been taken to mean Battelle Memorial Institute. Creationists still like to repeat this. However, the claim was directly rebutted in the February 1985 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo. According to Lang, the scientists “were convinced that the rock itself could not have been formed except where there was a great deal of water and pressure” and that the handle had been “partly coalified… under pressure with water and volcanic action”. If The Battelle Institute did not supply the data, where did Lang get the opinions? Might they have come from Baugh?

The nodule

The nodule in which the hammer is embedded is the real source of the claims of antiquity. If it is genuinely part of the local geology, then it potentially provides evidence either for the recent formation of the rocks – as Baugh would like – or it provides evidence for human (or human-like) technology in the very remote past indeed. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that the nodule was ever part of the bedrock (which, incidentally, is Cretaceous, not Ordovician in date). Remember, it was found on a ledge near a waterfall. This is the key to understanding the object.

The nodule is not a detached part of the bedrock, but a concretion made from once dissolved carbonate minerals that precipitated out as the water evaporated. In other words, the nodule could easily be of nineteenth-century date. Instead, we see the claim for (relative) antiquity parroted on websites, sometimes with reference to a book by Hans-Joachim Zillmer, Darwin’s Mistake: Antediluvian Discoveries Prove Dinosaurs and Humans Co-existed (Frontier Publishing, 1998). Zillmer makes a great play of the chemical composition of the hammerhead, reporting that it consists of “96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine and 0.74% sulphur”; this is the analysis that is often wrongly attributed to the Battelle Memorial Institute. Those dependent on this unsourced analysis have tried to claim that this is an impossibly pure form of iron and that iron cannot be combined with chlorine. These claims are nonsense. For one thing, steel contains 98-99.8% iron, while many iron ores (such as biotite) or meteoritic iron naturally contain chlorine, so it’s not a question of adding it. Finally, the idea that the handle has turned to coal is just plan silly. It is quite visibly wood, although the ends apparently show a little carbonisation. Carbonisation is a process that can happen to vegetable matter, especially wood, on heating. It is not “partly coalified”. If anything, it’s on the way to becoming charcoal.

Conclusion: the London Artifact is a hammer partly embedded in a concretion

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’

135 Replies to “The London Artifact (Texas)”

  1. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. Jack, the hammer or the sediment was never alive. Carbon dating can only be done on living or once living matter. I do not wish you or anyone who commented here, think that I am name-calling when I use the term ignorant, but the secular scientist rely heavily on the ignorance of the public. Notice all the comments on your request. Each is ignorant of the carbon dating fact that I pointed out to you. There are other kind of radiometric dating that is available for non living matter, such as rocks. If you wish to know about these then you will have to do some research on your own, but keep in mind that they, like carbon dating, cannot be accurate because each one uses speculation, yet no secular scientist will tell you that. Thus preying on your ignorance in the matter and making them look intelligent. Remember in your search for scientific knowledge that secular scientist can only offer the fact that they are well “schooled”, do interpret this as them being intelligent or educated. Take for the example of the “engineer” who’s comments you will find on this page, is he right?

      1. Jim, my suggestion, had you read it correctly, was that the handle could be dated by radiocarbon.

        The secular scientist creationist relies heavily on the ignorance of the public. Notice all the comments on your request. Each is ignorant of The average “creation scientist” wants to hide the carbon dating fact that I pointed out to you. There are other kind of radiometric dating that is available for non living matter, such as rocks. If you wish to know about these then you will have to do some research on your own, but keep in mind that they, like carbon dating, cannot be accurate because each one uses speculation, yet no secular scientist will tell you that have multiple lines of convergence that confirm the hypothesis of radioactive decay that lies behind their application, but no “creation scientist” wants you to know that, preferring to pretend that they are all unbridled “speculation”. Thus preying on your ignorance in the matter and making them look intelligent. Remember in your search for scientific knowledge that secular scientist can only offer the fact that they are well “schooled” “creation scientists” do everything in their power to prevent you from understanding the real world, do interpret this as them being intelligent or educated. Take for the example of the “engineer” who’s comments you will find on this page, is he right?

        There, fixed it for you!

        By the way, the uncalled-for scare quotes around “engineer” are insulting to cleanholio. You have no right to pretend that he is unqualified: how would you know?

        1. wow..your a dick man..make anything smart you say sound stupid when your an asshole…

          1. You’re welcome to your opinion, Corey. When I’m confronted with outright stupidity, I find it difficult to resit being sarcastic in return. It’s probably something to do with being English.

            1. Great comments, Keith, and you didn’t even have to mention Jim’s grammar, mentioning “the “engineer” who’s comments…” who’s comments? whose comments?

        2. You, Sir, made my day with this.
          I starded to seriously bluster while reading Jims comment but deflated with a big grin by the end of your answer. You truly fixed this.
          Thank you.

        3. You clearly stereotype all creationists and as a result bring into question your ability to objectively assess the authenticity of the London Hammer. The fact that it looks modern doesn’t mean that it is. ther is also no evidence proving a workman lost his hammer. The statement amounts to heresay. Though I demand evidence to support history there are many non-creationists who brush aside anything that conflicts with their belief system, subsequently you fail to provide anything tangible that lends credence to your conclusions.

          1. The London Hammer is authentic. It’s a real object. The question is its age. This is something that could be tested objectively in a number of ways.

            The expensive (and destructive) method is to get a radiocarbon determination on the handle, but I suspect that Carl Baugh would not authorise that. It’s also the case that creationists are very selective about how they regard radiocarbon dates: if they provide a date that goes back beyond when they would like the earth/the universe to have been created, then they say that the method is flawed, yet when it provides a date that appears too young by geological timescales, they happily use this as evidence that those timescales a wrong. They want it both ways.

            The much cheaper method is one that is used all the time by archaeologists: typology. What is the form of the object? What materials were used to make it? And this is where the London Hammer can easily be dated to the nineteenth century: its shape, the stuff its made from and the place it was found all point to it being no more than 200 years old.

            If it is as ancient at Carl Baugh claims, then there ought to be similar objects from deposits and sites that can be dated to whenever he thinks that the Noachian Flood happened. This is a problem, as no matter what date we put on the Flood (for which, it must be noted, there is no archaeological evidence whatsoever), we have never found a hammer of similar design in deposits of third millennium BC date or earlier. The very fact that the head is made from iron and that iron technology did not get started until the second half of the second millennium BC (long after any conceivable date for the Noachian Flood!) shows that it cannot be as old as Baugh claims.

            I don’t need to stereotype creationists: their flawed arguments do it for them.

            1. LOLOL dude did none of these people even check your photo to see your an archaeologist? i died, i realy want to see some dating on this thing although it may not be completely accurate there big difference between 100-200 hundred years and what was it.. 300 million ? geez, and of course even the water on this world predates the world itself (possibily even the sun) so with that knowledge its all realy just skepticism

          2. It has been confirmed as the same style of hammer common to the era and the area, it has been confirmed it was embedded in not rock but concreation, it has been confirmed that there are many extant examples of this, it has also been confirmed ‘creationists’ IE Biblical adherents blind to the completely overwhelming evidence of an old, old earth really have zero ground to stand on. on short you and your kind are a Joke yet one that plagues the USA but thankfully is treated as pretty much a joke in the entire rest of the world.

      2. Sorry, Jim. You’re the one that’s a little ignorant. Carbon dating has nothing to do with anything that was “once living.” Carbon dating is checking the level of radioactive degrade to calculate age. Since the decay rate of carbon-14 is constant, you can use it to calculate the age of the rock. Organic DOES NOT MEAN ONCE LIVING. Organic is any molecule containing carbon, except Carbon dioxide. These are facts. I didn’t have to speculate about what organic means of how carbon dating works, but you sure did. Please don’t ardently and snidely pass on misinformation for whatever reason you’re doing it. The universe is 13.8 Billion years old. The Earth, 4.6 Billion. You’ve got about 5 Billion years left. Don’t waste your time on Earth trying to be right.

        1. Not quite correct Steven. Carbon dating measures the ratio between carbon 14 and carbon 12. In living organisms this is the same as the proportion of carbon 14 in the atmosphere at the time. (Which can be calculated/measured using a variety of techniques). When an organism dies the exchange of carbon molecules stops, and Carbon 14 is no longer replaced. Therefore the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 decreases over time in a predictable manner, and the point of death can be roughly calculated. So it only works for things that were once alive.

          That said, the wooden handle can be carbon dated.

          1. Exactly, right, Steve. But what really matters here is that we are all sold many, many lies about just about everything. What we choose to believe is up to us.

            1. Awesome Comment Robert… Its impossible for us as humans to understand the creation of the universe. We don’t know what is truth or lies. we are clinging to a small chunk of rock hurtling through space in an ever expanding universe that we will never fully understand. to deny that a God could have created it is unprovable, yet it is equally unprovable to say he did. I am a christian and I have been miss lead and lied to so many times by miss lead Christian leaders (& people of Science) that I don’t take much on faith. I would love to see proof that this hammer found in such a shady way is what people are claiming it is before I believe any of it.

              even if it is real. it proves nothing to me. When I read the book of Gen in the bible I can draw at least 6 conclusions. 1: the world is 7000 years old, 2: that billions of years pass between the creation of the earth in gen 1:1 and the creation of light in 1:2, 3: the earth is created with age just like the stars & man & animals, 4: Gen is not telling a literal story but is an allegory. 5: Mosses is trying to figure out the world like scientist are doing today and this is his version of how it could have started 6: Hebrews did not look at numbers as counting facts but as representing things; 40 days is seen over and over and stand for trials and tests, just like seven represents completion and perfection, maybe creations 7 days is about the number 7 meaning completion to the Jewish mind and not a literal counting of 7/24 hour periods (if you don’t believe me count how many days Jesus was in the grave, hint its not 3/24 days). 7: lastly God creates day and night on the third day, so who is to say that day one and two were not a few billion in length? beside a day is said to be as a 1000 years to God.

              Any of the above are valid conclusions in my book (I don’t like number 5) and fully compatible with my belief system. without proof a dumb hammer is just a dumb hammer. True creationism offers a fairly broad and balanced theory on existence that 100% could be true but is hard to prove true. science and evolution have a few elements that can be proven true but don’t have the answers to key questions and leave many things hanging, and to me take more faith to believe in. But I just as everyone else in the world, I only know what I was taught by others who could have been wrong.

              1. Of all the responses on this subject I really like yours the best. I’ve never had someone put creation in this way and makes for some interesting thoughts!!
                Very well said!

        2. Steven,
          Can I steal that qoute: “The universe is 13.8 Billion years old. The Earth, 4.6 Billion. You’ve got about 5 Billion years left. Don’t waste your time on Earth trying to be right.”?

          1. It is funny to me when people bring up age of the Universe or Earth as if it was some kind of a set fact. None are. Both are conclusions made based on certain assumptions and are theoretical. Nobody really knows the age of the Universe or our planet, in fact. The Big Bang theory is but a theory based on an assumption that big explosion in our sector of the Universe was its origin. It is not necessarily true. An assumption that our modern science somehow is more right than any religion is also beyond ridiculous and forms another religious belief, called atheism (science worship) whereas people assume that scientists somehow know better. They do not. Our science level right now is very very low in understanding of such simple things as what makes a single cell work. Not to mention stars and galaxies. The most rational belief in my opinion is agnosticism. We do not know. NOBODY DOES and if you claim otherwise, you are just another snotty moron. Congrats.

      3. If they found insects or plants trapped in the fossil they can date it with carbone 14…

        1. Only if it’s under 50,000 years old (as this hammer certainly is!).

          1. If you cut the handle in half and count how many rings are in the grain of the wood you can find out how old the hammer is. Lol

            1. Good for a laugh, Mark, but not so. You would have to have a hammer handle with its center being the center of the tree, and know that the exterior of the handle was the last layer of wood. Satisfying these conditions, and a tiny bot of dendrology would tell you how old the tree was when the wood was cut, but nothing of the age of the hammer, or even how long ago the tree grew, UNLESS you were very fortunate and found correlating dendrochronology. But a good thought by you. Thanks!

      4. How does Carbon dating work on the wooden handle that the gentleman suggested be carbon dated. Ignorance is a major problem as is literacy in the world.I Believe Jim may suffers from both and that may have lead too An inferiority complex ( a lack of self-worth, a doubt and uncertainty, and feelings of not measuring up to society’s standards.) which may lead to putting others down to make himself feel better. best bet to combat Ignorance is to listen to others who may know what they are talking about .

        1. The thing is though, that yes, the handle can be carbon dated, but remember, what if it was made from a very old tree…wouldh’t that give it a sort of ‘false’ date? i still think the hammer is relatively modern and not something from prehistory.

      5. I believe just about anything that is matter on this planet can be dated, not just those things that have once lived. This has nothing to do with DNA, but more to do with carbon molecules and the radioactive half-life of the elements being dated.

      6. The handle is wood. From a tree. Trees are alive. And therefore carbon 14 dating will do fine.

    3. It has been carbon dated by 2 different universities. Both saybit is over 100 million years old.

    4. Have there been test done to the handle for any signs of petrification, if the theory claims an age of possibly over 100 million years, then it should show some indications of this. Also, why wouldnt the metal of the hammer head contain carbon? Has it been more recently tested?

  2. 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.

  3. 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….

  4. It looks like a blacksmith’s swage tool for pointing rock drill bits. Typical of the 1800’s.

    Here’s a picture of one from our Guild’s shop which is a bit more modern (maybe early 1900’s):

    Check out some mining tools on this page, and the swage tool at the bottom which is another variation of this type of tool:

    All mines that used rock drills used to have a blacksmith on site to sharpen the drills because they would go dull very quickly. They had boys that acted as “runners” going down in the mine to collect the warn out drills, and bring them back to the blacksmith, who would sharpen them, then run the new sharp drills back to the miners”. This “hammer” was not a hammer at all, but a blacksmith tool probably left behind at an old mine from the 1800’s.

    Check out this picture of the “hammer” which shows the end better to note it’s similarity with these types of tools:

    1. That is very helpful, thanks! A tool with relevance to quarrying explains perfectly why it was found where it was. A so-called “mystery” that is no longer in the least mysterious.

  5. What about the metallurgy of the hammer head itself? It is a strange mix of iron, chlorine and sulfur which, in this case at least, rendered a type of tool steel that is highly resistant to oxidization. Modern steels have nothing in common with this formula and the technique in the hammer’s manufacturing is not in the last few centuries of steel making history. If this artifact was actually a common type of 19th century metal working hammer, where are all the others just like or very similar to it in their composition? The closer we are to the things actual time of origin the easier it should be for us to fully understand if we are really talking about something within that of modern human’s ancestry or from something outside of it. As far as I’ve dug into this thing there have been no definitive explanations as to it’s process of manufacture. A 19th century hammer would be easy to expose. Probably right down to the very person who made it! Tools like this were made in mass, not unique one offs so to speak.

    1. Mike, It wasn’t that long ago that blacksmiths made the tools that they also needed to touch up from time to time. They would buy cast iron “pigs” and cut and whack it into a tool. Unfortunately the mills that produced the raw iron didn’t have the technology to refine it like nowadays. Iron was pretty much always contaminated with anything that could be in the ground. Remember iron comes from ore, so it gets mixed into anything that ever lived in a volcano, which is everything (even most meteorites ). This planet is mostly iron. All the way to the middle.

  6. I looked carefully throughout my family’s genealogy, and yes, OK, I do see an ancestor who made tools for the other cave people. Now you must understand this was a very long time ago. In fact, this relative made a full set of nice tools for Noah sometime before the building of the Ark, which itself is somewhere up on Mount Arrarat. So if there’s a good Christian out there somewhere who would like to help fund our expedition to find those tools, which may indeed still be aboard the good ship Righteous Brother (That’s its proper name), you may send me a generous donation. What we hope to do is to compare the tools, and that would confirm everything. God bless you one and all, for you’ll all get your just desserts in the end.

      1. Not sure I understand your comment. I’m absolutely serious in debunking this bit of nonsense.

  7. Mike – As an engineer I can tell you that chlorine corrodes steel, even stainless steel, and there is no way that any steel can be made with chlorine. I don’t know what creationist website you pulled that from, but it is impossible. I noticed you didn’t tell us who did the metallurgical report on the hammer head. Why don’t you share that with us so we can all see it for ourselves, hmm?

      1. I read a piece on this artifact a long time ago, can’t recall the original source, but I remember that the metallurgical analysis was done by two independent labs, one of which was Battelle Memorial Institute…

        As mentioned above, the presence of chlorine in the hammer is inexplicable, as it isn’t, and has never been used in metallurgical processes at all, by anyone, in all of recorded history —
        so if it really is SIMPLY a few-centuries-old mining hammer, how can the iron alloy be explained, it’s unseen elsewhere on the planet;
        it’s Unique — if the composition of the metal can be verified, that’s some solid evidence that’s damn hard to explain (previous High Civilization of humans before us?, technological/genetic intervention by an advanced space-faring species in ancient times? :D )
        Also reported to be incredibly pure iron (~96.6%), and decades ago a section was chipped off, and the exposed iron hasn’t even begun to corrode;
        If any aspect of this artifact is still unexplained, it’s the elements comprising the hammer (if – as usual – Another independent party can perform analyses and confirm the results of the hammerhead’s composition)…

        1. Look at the style of the object. That ought to be the starting point. Stylistically, this is a nineteenth-century hammer. If you then want to go ahead and perform tests on the composition of the iron, by all means do so. However, quoting a source that you can’t remember that claimed that two independent laboratories had done some tests isn’t really a good argument. It’s easy to do a Google search that brings up stories quoting the Battelle Institute. However, the February 1985 issue of Creation Ex Nihilo specifically denied the involvement of the Institute, so it seems that the analysis was not performed by them.

          It turns out that there is nothing inexplicable about the metallurgy of the hammer. The whole thing is a fraudulent claim.

        2. You found it here – probably:

          “Detailed research was carried out independently of one another by two different institutes. John Mackay, Director of Australia’s “Creation Science Foundation”, analyzed the hammer thoroughly during his visit to the United States.

          A number of Australian metallurgists, as well as those working at the respected metallurgic Institute “Batelle Memorial Laboratory” in Columbus, Ohio (USA), took part in these analyses.

          Sophisticated electron microscopes served to examine the structure and composition of the steel the hammerhead was made of.

          The results of the examinations were as mysterious as they were bewildering. The hammerhead, chemically speaking, consisted of 96.6 % iron, 2.6 % chlorine, and 0.74 sulphur. Incredibly, this material is almost entirely solid iron!

          Other additives or impurities were not detectable. Non-destructive testing methods of steel quality comprise x-ray examination, magnetic testing as well as ultrasonic detection. X-rays showed no evidence of inclusions or irregularities in the hammerhead steel. This means, it was tempered and hardened in some way.

          In general, chemically genuine and unworked steel is rather soft. The even structure determined, however, suggests that this hard steel that was manufactured by some sophisticated technology. The results of the examination are as sensational as they are unbelievable. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of steel manufacturing knows that every modern steel-making process, inevitably leads to carbon or silicon impurities! I emphasize the word inevitably. Steel production without these impurities is simply unthinkable!

          No other known ingredients used for refinement such as copper, titanium, manganese, cobalt, or molybdenum, vanadium, wolfram or nickel could be traced. We employ these and other elements in steel manufacturing to achieve different properties needed for different fields of application.

          The high quantity of the chlorine in the fossil hammerhead is remarkable, as well. Chlorine plays no part in modern steel manufacturing. It is not used at all today, so it is impossible to produce the high steel quality of the type found here by today’s manufacturing methods. ”

          See more here-

    1. IF there really is anything unusual about this metal, there always could be the explanation of a poorly trained novice blacksmith who included something he shouldnt have and stumbled across something wonderful…. you know, the way a lot of great discoveries are made. :) Of course, being a novice, he never knew how special it was.

  8. I have read the comments and ridiculous explanations made by the person in charge of these articles, and I have to say that this person is no more than an evolution-obsessed short minded ignorant. For everybody to know, there is a different explanation for all these discoveries, and that is this: The Sedimentary layers are not Age layers, they point to the occurrence of a world wide flood, please see: And knowing that, we will know that all these objects are not millions of years old. They are objects burried during the big Biblical flood, that has being recorded by every ancient culture around the world. Including the Iron Cup from Oklahoma found inside a big chunk of Coal, which is not a fossil fuel as it’s said, and which formation doesn’t require millions of years neither, for that, please see: Thetre is a lot to know when there’s the will to know, eyes open. Please see Romans 1:18-28.

    God Bless,

    1. Gonzalo, I am not “an evolution-obsessed short minded ignorant”. Evolution is a biological concept, not archaeological: I find it provides the best explanation for the biological diversity of our planet, but it has no bearing whatsoever on my understanding of archaeology or alleges “mysteries”. Rather, I suspect that you are the one who is “evolution-obsessed” in that you seem passionately to dislike its implications. You are the one who appears to me to be “short minded” if you can’t see (or are unwilling to see) what the evidence from multiple sources suggests.

      You can post as many links to ridiculous creationist YouTube videos as you like, but they are just plain wrong.

      Here is the text you recommend that I read:

      18 Ἀποκαλύπτεται γὰρ ὀργὴ θεοῦ ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέβειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν ἀνθρώπων τῶν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐν ἀδικίᾳ κατεχόντων, 19 διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὁ [a]θεὸς γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσεν. 20 τὰ γὰρ ἀόρατα αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ κτίσεως κόσμου τοῖς ποιήμασιν νοούμενα καθορᾶται, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους, 21 διότι γνόντες τὸν θεὸν οὐχ ὡς θεὸν ἐδόξασαν ἢ ηὐχαρίστησαν, ἀλλὰ ἐματαιώθησαν ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς αὐτῶν καὶ ἐσκοτίσθη ἡ ἀσύνετος αὐτῶν καρδία· 22 φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοὶ ἐμωράνθησαν, 23 καὶ ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου καὶ πετεινῶν καὶ τετραπόδων καὶ ἑρπετῶν.
      24 [b]Διὸ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις τῶν καρδιῶν αὐτῶν εἰς ἀκαθαρσίαν τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν ἐν [c]αὐτοῖς, 25 οἵτινες μετήλλαξαν τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῷ ψεύδει, καὶ ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα, ὅς ἐστιν εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας· ἀμήν.
      26 Διὰ τοῦτο παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς πάθη ἀτιμίας· αἵ τε γὰρ θήλειαι αὐτῶν μετήλλαξαν τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν, 27 ὁμοίως τε καὶ οἱ ἄρσενες ἀφέντες τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν τῆς θηλείας ἐξεκαύθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρέξει αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλήλους, ἄρσενες ἐν ἄρσεσιν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην κατεργαζόμενοι καὶ τὴν ἀντιμισθίαν ἣν ἔδει τῆς πλάνης αὐτῶν ἐν [d]ἑαυτοῖς ἀπολαμβάνοντες.
      28 Καὶ καθὼς οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν τὸν θεὸν ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει, παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ἀδόκιμον νοῦν, ποιεῖν τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα,
      (18 God shows his anger from heaven against all the evil and wrong things that people do. Their evil lives hide the truth they have. 19 This makes God angry because they have been shown what he is like. Yes, God has made it clear to them.
      20 There are things about God that people cannot see—his eternal power and all that makes him God. But since the beginning of the world, those things have been easy for people to understand. They are made clear in what God has made. So people have no excuse for the evil they do.
      21 People knew God, but they did not honor him as God, and they did not thank him. Their ideas were all useless. There was not one good thought left in their foolish minds. 22 They said they were wise, but they became fools. 23 Instead of honoring the divine greatness of God, who lives forever, they traded it for the worship of idols—things made to look like humans, who get sick and die, or like birds, animals, and snakes.
      24 People wanted only to do evil. So God left them and let them go their sinful way. And so they became completely immoral and used their bodies in shameful ways with each other. 25 They traded the truth of God for a lie. They bowed down and worshiped the things God made instead of worshiping the God who made those things. He is the one who should be praised forever. Amen.
      26 Because people did those things, God left them and let them do the shameful things they wanted to do. Women stopped having natural sex with men and started having sex with other women. 27 In the same way, men stopped having natural sex with women and began wanting each other all the time. Men did shameful things with other men, and in their bodies they received the punishment for those wrongs.
      28 People did not think it was important to have a true knowledge of God. So God left them and allowed them to have their own worthless thinking. And so they do what they should not do.)

      I’m unclear how the ramblings of Paul have any bearing on this object.

      Oh. By the way, posting the same response five times to different articles does not make it any more convincing (and, yes, I’ve just done the same!)

      1. I do not believe in any god but being a nuclear physicist with extensive and very diverse education I too consider evolution theory a myth. There is no possible way for life to spontaneously develop under any circumstances. It’s a manifest impossibility. The concatenation of events leading to current cornucopia of life forms is not just impossible, the possibility is a negative (I am being sarcastic here). There must have been a force that caused this evolutional trace observed in archeology studies to occur. There are scores of researchers, some of them are the pillars of modern theory of man as an animal machine who admitted after years of digging that there must be something else. The inability of modern science to look this factor straight in the face and admit it is rather silly. Because these are the people who claim to have the most sober attitude. They do not have the most sober attitude, neither do you. Most of the people in our societies base their conclusion on their pet authorities only. There are practically NO FREE THINKERS who form their opinions based on actual facts because people do not look into facts, they take opions from their favorite “debunker” or “scientist” or “minister of the church of whatever”. You are not any better, you can get off your high horse.

        1. Evolution don’t have much to do with archaeology at all. Furthermore, evolution theory only applies to what happens after life came into existence. Present-day scientists don’t consider it impossible for life to arise spontanously if the conditions are right. However, these circumatances don’t exist on the Earth today. Why do you dismiss the possiblity of anything such?

        2. A nuclear physicist eh? Well I’ll just have to take your word for that. Too bad though you aren’t a biologist.

          I however am and know exactly how incredibly easy it is for complex structures to emerge from simple building blocks, as has been backed up by computer simulations many times. I’m not surprised at your opinion though, intelligence comes in many forms. So does self-delusion.

    2. Gonz – There is a mountain of proof that there was no worldwide flood. But lets forget that for the moment and focus on your sedimentary layers comment. The sedimentary layers found throughout the globe encompass a wide range of different ages. And when I say different ages, I mean millions of years. Radiometric dating has confirmed this. Different fossilized remains of animals that lived at different times has also shown that sedimentary layers are not all the same age and were not all deposited at the same time. If there was a worldwide flood, that kind of water action would not have deposited the fine grained homogeneous material that rock formations like limestone are made up of. You would have had quite a range of particle sizes in all sedimentary formations. You also would have had a wide range of fossils too. Funny, isn’t it, that the ONLY fossils in sedimentary rocks are the ones that aren’t alive today? The supposed worldwide flood killed off all the animals (except the two of each species in Noah’s boat), yet NONE of the animals we see today are found anywhere. Not one elephant, mongoose, moose, finch. Not one oak tree or acorn either. Nope, the only thing we find are animals and plants that aren’t found anywhere today.

      That doesn’t bother you just a little bit? Every living creature, plant and animal, alive today has NO representation in sedimentary rocks supposedly laid down just thousands of years ago, even though 99.99% of them died in the supposed flood? And ALL the plants and animals that are found fossilized in those rocks cannot be found alive anywhere on Earth, even though Noah took a pair of every species…

      I know that, as a cultist, you are used to having people tell you what happened and how to think. When the preacher or the creationist website tells you something, your brain just does what it always does and accepts it without question or skepticism. That is how you have come to accept fictional nonsense as the truth even though it is so easily dismissed with a little rational thought.

      You should be ashamed to be fooled so easily…

      1. easily fooled, ha, all they had to do for you was say ”radiometric” lol.

      2. Um, not true, on the fossil claim. I have a fossilized ginko leaf at home from a sedimentary rock formation. It looks near identical to the leaves on the ginko tree up the street from the home I grew up in.

        1. Ginko is indeed a very old tree, though its appearance says little about the internal changes that may have occurred over time. It is however, the only tree of Ginkgophyta still alive in modern age. Such exceptions are literally the exceptions that verify the rule: that life has changed over time.

      3. There are thousands of fossils that are of animals that are alive today quit spouting disinformation. Dr Carl Werner shows clear evidence of it in a video series.

    3. Gonzalo, Where did all the water come from, and where did it go afterwards?

  9. It has been proven that parts of the Aticama desert havn’t seen rain in 2.3 million years.. That means no flood…

    1. The problem is that True Believers will see this as “atheistic science” simply because it contradicts the only source of authority they trust, their Bible.

      1. I agree with Keith. So often people will reject evidence, often violently, if it threatens to topple their often precariously constructed book of law in which they have found safety and stability. We are all story tellers. Emotions are real, words are our stories attempting to make sense of them.

  10. To be honest, that looks like a railroad hammer, used to drive spikes into cross ties. You used to be able to find them pretty easily all over Texas when I was a kid. Almost as common as railroad spikes themselves. Limestone slurries were used in a variety of industries over the years. Construction, coal plants, oil wells to name a few. It doesn’t stretch the imagination too much to imagine this tool dropped into one when a site was abandoned.

  11. “near a waterfall”
    uhm, erosion plus new sedimentation and hardening makes the trick, I presume

  12. The Bible is just a book of stories, most of which cannot be historically corroborated. People quote from it as if it were fact, but it’s just a manual for controlling the masses, competing with other similar tomes like The Qu’ran. Anybody can prove to me it’s not BS and I might listen.

  13. I know this is getting further and further from the original topic but I seriously would like to have some input on a theory I have. What if the bible is a book of many things? A book that includes the history of the Jewish people, a dietary guide book, a self help book, and maybe just maybe a scientific book. What if you looked at the bible from a scientific perspective and instead of mocking the story of Eve being created from Adams rib, why not think that maybe what they were describing was some sort of cloning? What if the story of Jonah and the whale was really a story of a man and a submarine? What if the writers didn’t know how to describe what they were seeing? What if they had no words to describe it? Could there be a chance, if looked at in a different light, that one could actually “marry” science and religion?

      1. Or an earth that was used for resources, mined if you will. Visited by aliens who were bored and were f***ing with us just for fun. What if we are all just one big experiment. I have no science to back up anything I’m saying, but it is fun to think outside the box.

    1. Callie I’ve been saying for years that this is the basis and then there are some key unknowns that will explain the rest…

  14. I’ve seen a glass jug, intentionally left, in a cave. It was positioned under a drip. 2 years later it was almost completely calcified. So i’m not amazed at this find,,only the stupidity surrounding it.

  15. shh you all have it wrong its simple its magic the elves left it there when they were making the grand canyon well they didnt intentionally make the grand canyon but they needed the big chunks of rock to make the big heads on easter island come on everybody knows that

  16. You all look ignorant unintelligent and idiotic when you bicker about pointless things on the Internet, the world needs to move on and realise we are all humans regardless of our political or religious opinions (and they are just that, opinions) science is the only thing without a doubt that questions itself until it had solid proof or evidence, it has theories until proven and theories are rigorously tested until proven or disproven, if their is no yes or no answer it remains a theory until scientific processes are advanced enough to get a result. The world is only going to destroy itself until it realises opinions shouldn’t run countries science has never caused wars only advanced society. Unfortunately science gets used to fight religious or political wars that shouldn’t happen in the first place difference of opinion should be discussed not forced upon people through fear or war. (a but off topic I know but I’m fed up with the human race for how immature it can act) remember a person is intelligent people as a collective whole arestupid and as you people keep saying ‘ignorant’

    1. Sorry there are so many errors and typos in my comment but I’m using my phone and I never hit the buttons correctly (also I am not that intellectual just know a lot of random crap)

  17. Not ascribing to any particular theory and aside from whether or not this hammer is ancient or recent, I wonder why is it people get so attached to one particular view of Time? Einsteins theory of relativity indicates that Time is relative. Is it so inconcievable that both camps, creationists and secular scientists could be both right and wrong on their view of how old the Earth is and what that means? If God exists and is omnipotent then time itself is a construct concieved by a greater power. Scientists should keep a truly open mind and be more tolerant of possibility and creationists more open to the idea that If God exists then his ways are beyond the ability of words to frame, even in tablets of stone.

    1. Kelly, you obviously know nothing about relativity, which is about the effects of velocity, acceleration, and differing observation frameworks (location and velocity of the observer relative to the object(s) being observed).

  18. I dont disagree or agree at this moment. I sometimes think america would do anything to cover the truth from the public and make up some crazy geological explaination crashing the possiblities that something like this artifact never actually happened in the correct periodic dates.if it made no sense or matched to their findings today. They would do anything to keep it hidden to protect their reputation besides what anybody says.

  19. We also have uninterrupted tree-ring records for the last 2000 years or so, so if there are visible rings in the wood in the handle (or if a core was taken) that could be used to date it.

    1. We actually have tree ring records going back much farther, thanks to the extraordinarily long lived California bristlecone pine, which can live to be over 7000 years old (this is already an obvious problem for those who believe in a world-wide flood and an earth that is barely 6000 years old!). The sequence can be extended further back by matching rings from living trees with older samples.

      1. See also the Wikipedia article on creosote bushes – one clonal colony is known to have lived for 11,700 years, which (by YEC dating) makes it almost twice as old as the Earth. I wonder what is was doing for the almost 6,000 years of its life before it existed?

        1. Obviously it was burning and waiting for Mozes to arrive to see it. I’m assuming that’s what you are hinting at. Can’t imagine another explanation myself as it is just insane to think that a reliable method of measuring could occasionally still make mistakes. Clearly a method should be 100% accurate all the time or never be used. (Though of course no such accuracy would be demanded from the bible which contradicts ITSELF multiple times. But hey, mysterious god right?).

  20. “But to tear down a factory or to revolt against a government or to avoid repair of a motorcycle because it is a system is to attack effects rather than causes; and as long as the attack is upon effects only, no change is possible. The true system, the real system, is our present construction of systematic thought itself, rationality itself, and if a factory is torn down but the rationality which produced it is left standing, then that rationality will simply produce another factory. If a revolution destroys a systematic government, but the systematic patterns of thought that produced that government are left intact, then those patterns will repeat themselves in the succeeding government. There’s so much talk about the system. And so little understanding.”

    ― Robert M. Pirsig

    1. You’re all missing the point entirely; ask any metallurgist if you can mix chlorine with iron. It can’t be done, not in today’s atmosphere. The composition of the hammer is proof that it was made at an (unknown) date when the earth had a different atmosphere. Whether that was 4,000 or 400,000 years ago is up for debate, but the fact is, this is no 19th century blacksmith’s handiwork.

      1. Chlorine is a regular component of meteoritic iron. If that was the source of the iron used to make the hammer head, then the problem is solved. Similarly, if an iron ore contained quantities of a mineral such as biotite (an iron rich mica), which has a high chlorine content, this could also account for a high proportion of chlorine in any iron smelted from it. In other words, there is no need to posit an atmosphere rich in chlorine. One wonders quite how the generations between Adam and Noah coped with that sort of concentration of chlorine in the air: it would have burned their lungs from the moment they took their first breaths!

      2. What Keith said. Also this is assuming that those analysis reports are real. I guess creationists would have to be used to believing in written words without questioning, but I don’t roll that way.

  21. It is interesting that one side of science talks about trees that live 7000 years (yet no one witnessed when the tree was planted) Carbon dating says the world is a gazillion years old (yet what do they use to calibrate the machines) and one story about this talks about the handle turning into coal which takes millions of years (yet no one witnessed how long it takes coal to form). None of the scientific methods to date the earth or any particular object can be proven. Someone mentioned a jug placed in a cave and how quickly it calcified, I have heard a story of a rope that was partially in a river and when they pulled it out, the part in the water was fossilized. So nothing can be proven one way or the other without a shadow of doubt. It seems everyone has faith in something, either that the people that designed a machine really know how to use it to date an object as very old, or that the Bible is true.

    1. Oh, please! This is the stupid creationist “were you there?” trope. I don’t have to have been there when the tree was planted. The tree was. It contains annual growth rings. Anyone who has learned to count can count them. It’s not beyond the wit of anyone. Carbon dating tells us nothing about the age of the earth, as it’s pretty much useless on samples older than about 50,000 years.

      In science, nothing is ever “proven”: proof is a mathematical concept. What we have is evidence and hypotheses designed to explain that evidence. When an hypothesis becomes sufficiently robust – in other words, no-one has ever produced evidence that refutes it – it passes to the level of a theory. Theories have nothing to do with faith. Theories can be overturned easily, if the counter-evidence is good enough. Scientific careers are often based on overturning earlier theories and hypotheses.

  22. According to some sources, carbon dating claims the hammer is more than 100 million years old, the hammer, not the rock.
    This raises questions..

  23. That’s impossible. God created the earth like 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. There’s no way. Praise Jesus!

    1. Are you serious or a troll?

      If you genuinely believe that, then your education is sorely lacking and you have been lied to.

  24. This artifact couldn’t possibly be 65 million years old! Humans didn’t exist at the time. No other organism could have been intelligent enough to create such an object… Common sense to the scientist…

  25. Is anyone else bothered by the fact there is a perfect cutout around the hammer? I would think if something was actually embedded in rock the rock would be tight up against it all over. Obviously limestone minerals can be diluted by water and form around an object. I have to wonder though if this is an outright hoax.

  26. Also seems odd that the handle is broke in such a way someone could just sit the head of the hammer in the cutout.

  27. It clearly indicates that Fred Flintstone was real as it was found in ancient bedrock!! Ergo dinosaurs lived with man. Now I need to take my meds and set fire to a bush so I can listen to God then persecute some gays and abortionists then go hunt something that is bordering on extinction

  28. If the iron used for this hammer was worked and hardened on earth, shouldn’t there have been carbon in the metallurgical analysis? Is it possible for tempered iron not to have carbon impurities in it?

  29. People seem to have missed a very interesting point by this article. So we have a new object in an old rock, or wait an old object in an old rock, no that’s not it, it is a new object in a new rock, right?? The clear take away is that you just cannot tell. So the next time they say they found a fish fossil in a 10 quintillion year old rock and claim life began way earlier than anyone thought, why should we believe them? Maybe it is a new fossil in new cemented rock (or whatever they say that is – isn’t that they way most rocks form that have stuff in them?). I just wish people would stop claiming facts and state it as it is, an educated guess.

  30. So basically until we have a flawless way of dating items, organic or not. It’s all hearsay and opinions, biased or unbiased. I mean if nobody can say for certain, how or where, and in which circumstances this London Hammer factually came to people’s attention. Then without the necessary dating advances, what hope is their? And it doesn’t take a genius to see that! Oh and if my grammars off, who cares!

  31. Let’s not forget people, the earth is flat and something so small that the naked human eye can’t see, can kill you and eggs are bad for you. Did I miss anything!!!! Oh yeah, if you explode a nuclear bomb. It will set the air on fire one atom at a time causing a run away cascading event destroying the entire planet.

    1. They said the wood had been turned into charcoal or at least started the process. I don’t think it can be dated after it has been heated. The hammer, like many other metal items found in rock, could not have been made millions of years ago. The metal would have rusted away by now. The only way I know these items could be inside the rock is teleportation. Yes, I know I’m crazy.
      Lightning striking metal objects on or in the ground turns them into a type of fulgurite depositing them when the charge is neutralized. Holes found in rocks may be the result of a double lightning strike where an item is transported then moved again by the second strike. Carbon blocks are used in some nuclear reactors as neutron dams. Items have been found in coal and limestone (calcium carbonate).
      They use high voltage to shrink coins which makes them thicker and changes the structure of the metal, like heat treating, which may explain why cuts in these objects do not rust easily.
      Yes I could be wrong but it is more believable than these items being millions of years old.

    2. Price, lol, if you were to go back to the beginning of this thread, you will count no less that u people who have asked the EXACT question you just did! Lol!!! And there are A LOT of different answers. My favorite is , and I quote, “… can’t we just cut the handle in half and count the rings?” Best answer EVER!

  32. The hammer was teleported by lightning making it a type of fulgurite. A metal object on or in the ground is hit by the electrical charge and deposited where the charge is neutralized. Many of the artifacts are found in coal or limestone (calcium carbonate). Carbon blocks are used in some nuclear reactors as neutron dams. Holes in rocks that look like an artifact may be where a double lightning strike transported the object and the second charge sent it further. When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left must be true.

  33. If care to hear more of the story, George Hahn was my Grandfather. Heard many stories of the hammer and who holds it now is ridiculous to glorify his personal beliefs. All in all ask anyone in geology and how quick sedimentary rock forms.

  34. I have faith in God, but I’ve never come across a ‘creationist’ that has convincing arguments or theories. Many are childish, akin standing in a bucket and thinking you can lift yourself off the ground by pulling up on the handle. It makes sense to a toddler, who is then mystified when they attempt it and it doesn’t work. How do creationists work their way around light that’s been traveling through the universe for millions of years, so that the astrological happenings we observe actually took place in the distant past? I find it annoying that creationists are compelled to believe the bible as literal in every aspect.

  35. How exactly a limey shale rock is dissolved? With Sulfuric acid, with Hydrofluoric acid, or with what? Dissolved by who? And to what end? Were the 19th century stone masons using some strong chemical solvents, while working with stone?

Agree or disagree? Please comment! If you've never commented before, you may have to wait until I approve it: please be patient.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: