The biggest anachronisms of all time, Whyzzat?

[redrumloa]

I don't know about you, but I like shows like 'In Search Of...' from the 70's and 'Ancient Aliens' of today. While I think it is a bit comical that the conclusion to the latter show is always aliens no matter what, both shows discuss topics you don't really hear of anywhere else. Ancient Aliens lately has mentioned some things which cannot easily be explained. So while I don't anticipate the answers to be 'Aliens' on any of these, it does make me wonder if mainstream history could be so terribly wrong.

The first topic to discuss is the London Hammer.

While disputed, obviously, the rock formation it is in takes over 100 million years to form. The metal head has no carbon, which indicates a manufacturing technique not of the industrial age. The wood handle has gone through coalification which also suggests it is not simply a hammer from the 1800s as critics suggest.

This would all seem impossible, right? Dinosaurs still walked the Earth so there was supposedly no humans. While that's probably true, I've not read or seen a skeptic explain this away well. They seem to just dismiss it out of hand and ignore it.

And no, sorry, not aliens ;-)

 

[Robert]

The first topic to discuss is the London Hammer.

While disputed, obviously, the rock formation it is in takes over 100 million years to form.

Never heard of this but a quick search turned up this:

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.

This would all seem impossible, right?

Yes.

 

[redrumloa]

Never heard of this but a quick search turned up this:




Yes.

And the metal composition? The coalification of the handle? You think those are unsubstantiated lies?

 

[Robert]

And the metal composition? The coalification of the handle? You think those are unsubstantiated lies?

Haven't checked but when the first claim turned out be bogus I didn't feel the need to pursue it any further.

-EDIT-
Just for shits and giggles I decided to dig a little deeper (actually not really deeper; this is from the search result above the previous one I mentioned) and found this critique of the claims.

On the metal:

Lacking any rigorous geologic evidence for their claims, hammer advocates have tried to make hay from the composition of the hammer head. Mackay (1985) and Lang (1983) reported that the hammer was studied at the renown Batelle Laboratories in Columbus, Ohio, where the head was found to consist of 96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine, and 0.74% sulfur by weight. Baugh suggested this profile was impossible to duplicate with modern technology under present atmospheric conditions (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). However, this claim would be difficult to substantiate. Even if the composition were truly unique, it would more likely indicate a lost or abandoned technology, not evidence against mainstream geology. According to Helfinstine and Roth (1994) a "tomographic x-ray" of the hammer, taken by Texas Utilities in 1992, showed no inclusions or irregularities in the head. Curiously, they and Baugh interpreted this as evidence of "advanced metallurgy" from a superior pre-Flood culture, rather than further evidence that it is a relatively modern hammer.

On the handle:

The early American style of the hammer, and the largely undistorted and poorly mineralized condition of the handle, further suggests a relatively recent date. Well-preserved wood from Mesozoic or Paleozoic formations would not be expected to have such an appearance, nor to my knowledge have any similar wood specimens been documented in the nearby formation. Lines asserts on Baugh's web site that the hammer is partially "petrified" but I saw no evidence of this when I examined it in person, and other creationists have agreed that the wood in the handle looks relatively fresh, not much different from modern hardwood hammers (Helfinstine and Roth, 1994). In view of these considerations, It seems highly unlikely that the hammer was ever a natural part of the nearby Cretaceous beds, and more likely that it was dropped or discarded by a local miner or craftsman within the last few hundred years.

So, much as you would expect, given the first bogus claim.

-EDIT 2-
And a third link points out:

The confounding factor in all this, of course, is that Baugh will not release the artifact for independent testing. He has had it tested, it is claimed, but not in a transparent way.

So, yes, I would tend to draw the same conclusion, summed up in Kuban's piece:

As with all extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on those making the claims, not on those questioning them. Despite some creationist assertions that the hammer is a dramatic pre-Flood relic, no clear evidence linking the hammer to any ancient formation has been presented. Moreover, the hammer’s artistic style and the condition of the handle suggest a historically recent age. It may well have been dropped by a local worker within the last few hundred years, after which dissolved sediment hardened into a concretion around it. Unless Baugh or others can provide rigorous evidence that the hammer was once naturally situated in a pre-Quaternary stratum, it remains merely a curiosity, not a reliable out-of-place artifact.

 

[redrumloa]

So, yes, I would tend to draw the same conclusion, summed up in Kuban's piece:

I do wish it were in the hands of someone other than a creationist but apparently there was no other interest as he bought it as an individual owner. Extraordinary claims do indeed require extraordinary evidence. More evidence would indeed be required, but I do take exception to some of the skeptics explanations too.

Even if the composition were truly unique, it would more likely indicate a lost or abandoned technology, not evidence against mainstream geology.

Not a good explanation. That in and of itself would be of interest to me, not just an off hand comment to discount something. What lost or abandoned technology? Did we really lose that much since the late 1800s, when they claim this hammer is from?

 

[Robert]

Even if the composition were truly unique, it would more likely indicate a lost or abandoned technology, not evidence against mainstream geology.

Not a good explanation. That in and of itself would be of interest to me, not just an off hand comment to discount something. What lost or abandoned technology?

I agree but for me the most important part of that quote is:

Even if the composition were...

Given what's already been shown it strikes me as extremely unlikely that it would turn out to have a unique composition and given that the chap won't allow it to be tested we'll probably never know but I think we can guess.

Did we really lose that much since the late 1800s, when they claim this hammer is from?

Indeed, if (and let's be honest, it's a gargantuan 'if') it did turn out to be unique this would be an interesting discussion point.

 

[metalman]

Just from looking at the photo, and a knowledge of geology

London, TX is in the west Texas hill country, geologically a massive limestone reef

the area has many, many caves and fissures

the sledge hammer is a modern style with a hardwood handle, that is shattered and broken

looks to me like the sledge was broken and fell into a limestone fissure, then cemented in place over time in a natural leaching of the Limestone minerals from the limestone formation
the same way as stalagmites and stalactites are formed in caves over time

geologically this is re-deposited calcite flowstone

It is very hard to date fossils found in caves, dating the recently found Homo naledi fossils have this problem

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

Visited quite a few limestone caves in the north of England, and limestone caves are created by water dissolving away the limestone. The water becomes very mineral rich and, in high evaporation environments, can redeposit the mineral quite quickly. There are quite a few artifacts that have been found in such caves "petrified".
Probably the most famous place where that sort of thing is done deliberately is the Petrifying Well of Knaresborough.

 

[Robert]

Visited quite a few limestone caves in the north of England, and limestone caves are created by water dissolving away the limestone. The water becomes very mineral rich and, in high evaporation environments, can redeposit the mineral quite quickly. There are quite a few artifacts that have been found in such caves "petrified".
Probably the most famous place where that sort of thing is done deliberately is the Petrifying Well of Knaresborough.

That's the place you can hang your socks (or hammers )in the waterfall and they "turn to stone"?
It's been on my to-visit list for a while and I might get there weekend after next as I'm visiting friends who live in Shipley.

 

[redrumloa]

Prehistoric teeth fossils dating back 9.7 million years 'could rewrite human history'

Archaeologists in Germany have discovered a 9.7 million-year-old set of fossilised teeth they say could trigger the “rewriting" of human history.

The dental remains were found by scientists sifting through gravel and sand in a former bed of the Rhine river near the town of Eppelsheim.

They resemble those belonging to “Lucy”, a 3.2 million-year-old skeleton of a human ancestor found in Ethiopia.

However, they do not resemble those of any other species found in Europe or Asia, raising questions about the “out-of-Africa” theory of human origins.

 

[metalman]

Bigfoot?

The Remarkable Life of Peter Freuchen

 

[metalman]

Prehistoric teeth fossils dating back 9.7 million years 'could rewrite human history'

Archaeologists in Germany have discovered a 9.7 million-year-old set of fossilised teeth they say could trigger the “rewriting" of human history.

The dental remains were found by scientists sifting through gravel and sand in a former bed of the Rhine river near the town of Eppelsheim.

They resemble those belonging to “Lucy”, a 3.2 million-year-old skeleton of a human ancestor found in Ethiopia.

However, they do not resemble those of any other species found in Europe or Asia, raising questions about the “out-of-Africa” theory of human origins.

This is a very big discovery, been waiting for the scientific paper on the discovery to be published
I want more information on how the tooth was dated

 

[metalman]

Prehistoric teeth fossils dating back 9.7 million years 'could rewrite human history'

Archaeologists in Germany have discovered a 9.7 million-year-old set of fossilised teeth they say could trigger the “rewriting" of human history.

The dental remains were found by scientists sifting through gravel and sand in a former bed of the Rhine river near the town of Eppelsheim.

They resemble those belonging to “Lucy”, a 3.2 million-year-old skeleton of a human ancestor found in Ethiopia.

However, they do not resemble those of any other species found in Europe or Asia, raising questions about the “out-of-Africa” theory of human origins.

Ancient Teeth Found in Europe Belonged to Mystery Primate

"experts say that the molar probably belongs to a species of pliopithecoid, an extinct, primitive branch of primates that lived in Europe and Asia between roughly seven and 17 million years ago."

 

[redrumloa]

Just stumbled on this.

Interesting, but so far Daddy Google is not much of a friend.