The Mystery of the Modern "London Hammer" Found in Ancient Rock
Every so often, a major discovery changes humanity's view of its own history and the life that came before it. But sometimes, people find that fascinating discoveries, while they may seem earth-shattering, actually have a rather simple explanation.
That doesn't always mean they'll be acknowledged as such, though. And so, the mystery of the London Hammer persisted long after its solution.
A Picturesque Walk Through Texas
According to Paleo, a website run by independent dinosaur researcher Glen Kuban, the saga of the London Hammer began when a man named Max Hahn was walking with his wife along Red Creek.
Since it's not the only waterway of that name in the United States, it's worth noting that this one is near London, Texas.
Something Stood Out
It's unclear whether their trip was in 1934 or 1936, but what is known is that it ended with them investigating a small rock formation in the ground.
What she found so interesting was a piece of wood that seemed to be sticking out, and it didn't look natural.
A Long Wait for a Little Help
For the next decade, that wooden stick continued to poke out of the rock nodule. But it was clear that the find had been nagging at Hahn all that time.
Sometime between 1946 and 1947, Hahn's son George broke open the rock formation to finally find out what was inside.
A Hammer That Sparked Decades of Debate
The piece of wood turned out to be the handle of an old hammer, which was remarkably intact upon its discovery.
What was most notable about the hammer, however, was how new the metal hammerhead looked compared to the rock layer in which it was found. The technological level seemed far too advanced for some of the earliest humans.
A Riddle Emerges
Although there were many questions about how the hammer got into the rock and if it was really as new as it seemed, the mystery remained largely unsolved for decades.
But in the early 1980s, it became the subject of long-running debates when the hammer was dubbed the "London Artifact."
Some Important Considerations
Since certain details of the hammer will be of great importance to this debate, it is best to clarify them first.
One aspect that several reviewers on both sides agreed on was that the hammer sat relatively loosely in the rock and was not part of its original formation.
How Can We Tell Where the Hammer Sat?
Since there are no photos or official documents from the time of the discovery, it is difficult to say exactly what the hammer looked like when it was found.
However, as Kuban noted, "The lack of sharp marks on the nodule seems to confirm reports that it was found loose and not chiseled out of a larger rock."
It's a Little Rusty.
Paleo reported that the hammer was supposedly smooth and covered with a brownish coating when it was discovered.
Since its discovery and oxidation, however, the hammerhead has taken on a rougher texture and become a little rusty. But, of course, the head wasn't the only thing that has been closely examined since then.
A Particularly Odd Fact About the Handle:
Most wood artifacts from earlier geological periods are either completely petrified or show signs of mineralization, a process in which inorganic minerals enter the porous parts of organic material such as wood.
Apart from minor carbon deposits on both handle tips, however, the wood has remained largely unmineralized.
Carl Baugh Enters the Picture
These details are important because each one is needed to check the accuracy of the claims of Carl E. Baugh, the owner of the Creation Evidence Museum, who acquired the hammer around 1983.
Kuban himself was able to examine the hammer in person twice. Once at a creation conference in Pennsylvania in 1986, and once in 2006 after a lecture by Baugh at his museum.
An Alleged Wrench in the Works
For Baugh, the London Hammer is an extremely important find, as he often presents it as proof of an out-of-place artifact.
Since the Earth is much older than him, according to the conventional geological timeline, and humanity is billions of years younger than the world as a whole, anything that could potentially undermine belief in this timeline is a valuable resource for him.
A More Concrete Claim
While other Baugh claims—replicated in a 2014 article in the "American Biology Teacher"—are consistent with the assumption that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, he has a more specific origin in mind for the London Hammer.
As Kuban put it, "Baugh considers the hammer to be a relic from the time before the flood—presumably at least several thousand years old."
They Don't Seem to Understand the Timeline.
For Baugh and similarly minded creationists, it is worth noting that some creationists disagree. The rock around the hammer could be 500 million years old, 400 million years old, 300 million years old, or 135 million years old.
Baugh's own website actually disagreed on whether the rock was from the Ordovician or Cretaceous periods, which are about 300 million years apart.
Finding a Clear Answer
However, since it is not difficult to reach the hammer's discovery area, geologists were able to determine the age of the rock much more accurately than Baugh or his colleagues.
And according to Paleo, they found that the rock layer where the hammer was found is from the Lower Cretaceous period and is therefore between 110 and 115 million years old.
What Are the Paluxy "Human Tracks"?
Although Baugh apparently had a hard time accurately documenting the geological data, Paleo found that the layer in which the hammer was found is located directly below the layer that contains the Paluxy footprints, which Baugh often refers to as "human tracks."
For those unfamiliar, the 2014 American Biology Teacher article described them as footprints near particularly well-preserved dinosaur tracks, which Baugh cites as evidence that humans and dinosaurs once shared the Earth.
The Problem With Baugh's Claims
According to Paleo, Baugh suggests that the same people who made this hammer before the flood were the same or at least related to those who allegedly walked among the dinosaurs.
However, the archaeological finds at the Paluxy River not only do not suggest genuine human traces, but the layer in which they were found could also be up to 5 million years younger than the layer in which the hammer was found.
How Carbon Dating Can Help
Kuban noted in Paleo that the age of the hammer can be determined using the carbon-14 method because of its wooden handle.
After all, a lack of usable carbon in the handle would mean that the hammer is over 50,000 years old. And if it contains carbon-14 and is younger, its actual age could be determined more accurately.
Baugh Won't Let Scientists In.
Although this could finally solve the mystery, Baugh keeps a close eye on the hammer and does not make it available to scientists for a more detailed analysis.
And Baugh has also always refused to have the hammer carbon dated. In a letter exchange available to Paleo, Baugh's companion Walter Brown argued that this was only because no one would agree to Baugh's "understandable conditions" for the dating.
Baugh's Conditions and the Reaction
As Paleo recounts, Baugh's conditions were that a mass spectrometer, such as the one shown here, had to be used for the dating, he had to be present at the dating, and someone else had to bear the costs.
However, Jim Lippard—Brown's correspondent—countered that only one condition was unreasonable. Mass spectrometry and Baugh's presence were not a problem, but Lippard said Baugh had no right to expect others to pay for the confirmation of his own claims.
Baugh's Continued Refusal
Whether he had the right to ask for it or not, others offered to cover the costs and finally determine the age of the London Hammer. However, Baugh continued to decline.
This prompted another researcher named R.P.J. Day to write a letter in 1991, in which he wrote: "Baugh's demands are far from 'understandable' but seem like evasive maneuvers... If four years have passed and nothing has happened, one can probably assume that Baugh has no interest whatsoever in finding out the truth about his wonderful hammer."
A Questionable Update
In the late 1990s, a Baugh supporter named David Lines claimed that Baugh had subjected the hammer to C14 dating and found that its age was between the current time and 700 years ago.
Lines explained that even this unusually large range was significantly younger than Baugh's age estimate, which proved the unreliability of C14 dating and the contamination of the hammer by "current organic substances."
Unmasking Baugh's Claims
However, this assessment was not in line with the usual procedure for carbon dating. For one thing, scientists who use C14 dating typically provide a specific date with a certain margin of error rather than an unnecessarily large range of years. And most C14 labs have methods to minimize interference from modern carbon dating.
These facts—along with the lack of detail about where, when, and how often these alleged carbon dating tests took place—make it difficult to believe that Baugh ever had the hammer carbon dated.
Not Even Other Creationists Agree.
In addition to the conventional scientific community, Baugh's claims also failed to convince other creationist organizations. He claims the hammer was embedded in the rock, although even his ally David Lines admitted that it was loose in it. He also claimed the handle was petrified, which
Paleo found was disproven by several creationists who examined it. Baugh's claims about the unreliability of carbon dating are questionable even in creationist circles, as many of them consider it to be reasonably accurate for at least several thousand years.
The Burden of Proof
To prove the London Hammer to be the misplaced artifact claimed by Baugh, Paleo required convincing documents proving that it was once naturally embedded in an ancient rock formation and to determine its age with independent scientific evidence.
Since he has not even convinced all of his friends of the first condition and even his dubious claim of carbon dating does not meet the second condition, Baugh does not seem to be up to this burden of proof.
So What is the London Hammer?
Although Baugh has complicated all efforts to determine the true age of the hammer, the technology and engineering visible in its construction can provide some clues as to its age.
In a 1985 article in the Creation/Evolution Journal, John R. Cole described the hammer as "newer American historical style," which suggests its probable age is no earlier than the mid-19th century.
How Did it Get Into the Rock in the First Place?
Although the rock layer in which the hammer was found could be up to 115 million years old, that doesn't mean that all objects found in that layer must necessarily be the same age.
As Cole put it, "Minerals in solution can harden around an object that falls into a crack or is simply left on the ground, provided that the original rock [...] is chemically soluble."
This Can Happen Surprisingly Quickly.
In other words, it is not impossible for the rock to have closed around the London Hammer after it was placed there sometime in the mid-19th century.
And if that seems too short for a stone, Cole pointed out that enough limestone deposits have accumulated in the coral reefs in the Pacific since World War II to enclose war artifacts.
So What Actually Happened?
Even if its exact age were publicly known, it would be difficult to say what events led the London Hammer to its final resting place. However, the most plausible theories assume that dissolved sediment solidified around it after it found its way near Red Creek.
Given this proximity, it is possible that the creek itself carried the hammer with it after it was disposed of.
An Even More Likely Scenario
However, the most widely accepted explanation in science for how the London Hammer got to Texas is also the simplest.
It was used by a miner working in the area who forgot it among the rocks he was breaking through. Since he would have extracted resources from ancient rock layers, the hammer would have had enough space before enough sediment formed and compacted around it.
It's Not That Profound
Ultimately, the abundance of evidence surrounding the London Hammer makes its discovery seem much more likely to be the fascinating result of a simple mistake than something that fundamentally changes humanity's understanding of its history.
In Kuban's words: "Unless Baugh or others can provide sound evidence that the hammer was once naturally in a pre-Quaternary layer, it remains merely a curiosity and not a reliable, out-of-place artifact."