Hammer embedded in rock...

[Dogsoldat]

I was looking around at a few random things and came across a page. While most of it is pretty far out the hammer does look interesting.



The face of that I can see looks like it has 4 points similar to a stone masons chisel or a heavy war hammer. Anyone seen anything like it in their travels?


Mod: Useless link removed

[CurlyGeorge]

Not sure what you are talking about. I checked the link that you posted and I couldn't find any hammer.

[Bentiron1946]

Looks like the face of a rock drill swage to me.

[Timothy Miller]

I think they tried to use that hammer as proof that the world is only 5000 years old in a creationist museum. That web site is a whole load of bunk and pseudoscience.

[Dogsoldat]

That it is but the hammer is interesting. The rest, well a good chuckle is always is needed here and there. It does resemble the end of a rock drill. Hadn't really thought of that.

[Ramsberg]

Today "science" is more often then not, nothing more then sudo-science. Recognizing a theory as an unproven idea has been converted into demanding that an unproven theory is a fact through the effect of what I call "permanent idea syndrome". That is when an idea has been believed for so long by so many that even if its base or foundational theory has not been proven. The idea is defended to the ends of the Earth as a true-ism.

Archaeology is based on layers of strata being indicators of "ages" or a time table so to speak. This has never been proven to be true. Not only has more advanced artifacts been found in layers under(sometimes directly under) more crude ones, but radioisotope dating is flawed in the effect that one must assume the conditions that the tested segment has been exposed to. There are too many "unknowns" out there to truly prove or disprove many "permanent ideas".

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm

The web pages that I have linked to are from a religious entity, however if you just look at their studies and nothing else it is interesting. This is NOT easy to do, regardless of ones religious beliefs! Lets face facts for a second, the hard core evolution people commonly bash the creationists as religious wackos who are touched in the head. The creationists riddle every study they conduct with scripture and preaching. NEITHER of those combined acts are scientific! Science is supposed to be about looking at the evidence from experiments and THEN fitting the theory around the evidence. NOT the other way around such as is done by BOTH sides!

To get back to the hammer.

This issue is also alive with archaeology, VERY much alive and kicking. It is common for a researcher to ignore indications that an artifact is pointing to one thing if it "should" belong to such and such a group. These institutes live off of grant money and said grant money doesn't appear out of thin air. The granters demand results, not just any results but ones that pump up their heritage. So if an artifact of great import or development is found in one "country" that oboviously originated from another it may very well be stuck in a drawer and forgotten. Archaeology is just as tainted with pride and corruption as anything else that we people do, it is sad but true.

Having said all of that, the hammer is very interesting.

I wish there was a ruler or size reference in the picture.

That eye looks rather wide doesn't it? As in the cheeks are thin and bulged out a good bit. The eye looks to be around 4/5 as wide as the hammer billet. Looks like a mining hammer/stone hammer to me. That bit surrounding it could be just from the mineral cave drips.

When I was on a cave tour(guided spelunking) as a child we were walking down a asphault path in the cave as the tour guide was saying how it took hundreds of years for just a fraction of a inch of minerals to build up in the cave. Then I came upon a section of the asphault walk way which was coated with 1 1/2" of minerals from the drips! Well, either that guy was going on the wrong theory or that asphault path pre-dated the Mayflowers voyage by a few centuries! Never trust anyones opinion, especially an "experts", they believe their puke is worth its weight in gold!

Caleb Ramsby

[Mr Smith]

Caleb, I think a lot of your confusion comes from the fact that "theory" has a different meaning in a scientific context, compared to what it has in a regular, everyday context.

For the record when we're discussing science, "Theory" means "everything we know about a particular phenomenon". For example, the theory of gravity, atomic theory, heck, even piano theory.

Secondly, I'm not sure where you get this idea that rock strata have never proven to be indicators of age. Sedimentary rocks build up over centuries. The recent stuff is going to be the stuff that is dumped on top, and will obviously be older than the stuff down lower - we call that "relative dating".
We have very reliable test that can tell us how long certain isotopes of rock take to decompose into other isotopes. By working out the relative amounts of each isotope, we can tell the age of the rock - we call that "absolute dating".
Sure, we have all these tales of out of place objects, or "OOPs", but show me one that has been discovered in the last twenty years or so - Most of them are based on eyewitness accounts from the 19th century.

Lastly, with mineral deposition, where the minerals are deposited makes all the difference. The point of a stalagmite or stalagtite is a very small area, compared to the width of a path. Deposition would be much faster on a wider object. The bottom line is that science is an ongoing process, and until something is backed up by hard evidence, it just ain't science. Nothing would make an expert's day quite like making some kind of new discovery - the real recognition is in finding new stuff.

[njanvilman]

BLACKSMITHING/ METALS/ TOOLS/ TECHNIQUES/ IRON PLEASE. This is not the forum for this arguement!

Staff notice: We do not agree, so you are over ruled :D

[Mr Smith]

I'm not arguing. I think the guy posting in bold and all caps might be, though... :-)

I'll admit it's off topic, but it's connected to the thread of this discussion. Sometimes discussions go that way.

[Timothy Miller]

They were talking about giants and the Illuminati on that web site. That is some very fringe stuff even for religious people who feel that the world was created in 7 days and is only 5000 years old. scientists are experts we are not. They sometimes make mistakes we all do. They have put in the time to learn their area of study in much greater depth then us. Its kind of like a backyard weekend smith telling a professional that he or she doesn't know what they are doing. Most people only have an inkling of what scientists actually understand. If they didn't have have a good idea of what was actually going on and everything was as subjective as you say. We wouldn't have things like probes to mars, deep sea oil wells, Modern medicine, live stock breeding, and many other things.

Excellence in all areas science and technology is part of what has made our country great, It really scares me to see grown adults who refuse to understand it.

[southernforge]

I remember a professor who once spent a three hour session explaining that science is defined by the scientific method, and that since researchers don't follow the scientific method, therefor there is no such thing as science. He further stated that researchers mistake the use of technology for science, therefor we should more accurately refer to the researchers as technologists rather than scientists.

[Dogsoldat]

In June 1934, the Hahn family discovered a rock, sitting loose on a ledge beside a waterfall outside of London, Texas. The site primarily consists of 75-100 million years old cretaceous rock. Noticing this weathered rock had wood protruding from it, they cracked it open, exposing the hammer head. To verify that the hammer was made of metal, they cut into one of the beveled sides with a file. The bright metal in the nick is still there, with no detectable corrosion. The unusual metallurgy is 96% iron, 2.6% chlorine and 0.74% sulfur (no carbon). Density tests indicate exceptional casting quality.

The density of the iron in a central, cross-sectional plane shows the interior metal to be very pure, with no bubbles.

Modern industry cannot consistently produce iron castings with this quality, as evidenced by test results that show bubbles and density variations that have caused pump and valve bodies to break. The handle eye is partially coalifed with quartz and calcite crystalline inclusions, oval shaped, and roughly 1" x 1/2".


Didn't mean for this to get into any form of religious/pro/anti-science type debate. Linked to the page just for the info on where and how found, however valid. Along with the supposed alloy of the hammer head. Thought it was an interesting shape. It would be really nice to have some sort of scale next to it. Best guess so far seems to be a swage for drill ends... Personally I think there are many erroneous assumptions. Biggest being that the head was cast. From what I have read casting hammers is a more recent thing.

[Ramsberg]

I apologize for using a blanketed statement, I try to never do such because a mis-understanding is almost always the result.

The scientific method is:

1: Form a Theory to make a prediction
2: Form an experiment to test the prediction
3: Conduct the experiment and observe the results
4: Use the results to modify the original theory

I do not disbelieve in science as conducted strictly from the scientific method, not at all.

The area I am most knowledgeable of is steam power, so let me use that to give an example of a theory being misused.

There is what is called a theoretical engine. This engine does not exist in reality but is produced via calculations based on the properties of steam and heat energy. These are properties that have been found via experimentation and are very exact. For the theoretical engine the greatest efficiency is always produced by using the hottest steam possible with the greatest expansion ratio possible. That would be taking steam at 2,000+ psi at 1,300 + deg F and expanding it down to a hard vacuum.

Then there is the real engine for which factors have been produced to convert ones calculation of the theoretical to the real engine. These factors are called "card factors", said term comes from pressure lines being drawn on literal cards to show what the pressure is of the steam in a working engine as it goes through its stroke. These factors account for leakage, resistance to flow from the valves and other things. Using these factors one can modify the calculations of the theoretical engine to give results that will be close to the real engine.

Then there is road use. Said card factors are for stationary engines and for engines used on the road or rails things are vastly different. What with starting from cold, vastly changing engine speeds and loads along with different atmospheric conditions and operator techniques.

The theory proposed by many of the steam power experts is that higher temperatures, pressures and expansion ratios always result is greater economy, it must that is what the theory dictates. The reality however is very different. An outfit called SES(Scientific Energy Systems) back in the 70's went to great lengths to produce a steam power plant for a car which embodied all of the aspects of what should theoretically be a perfect and very efficient system.

Things didn't turn out as they expected. Firstly when they ran the engine on the dyno it didn't give the results which their theory had predicted, then when they tested it on the road the results were not even close to what they had produced when on the lab dyno. What they found was that on the road any steam temperature above 750 deg F didn't produce a significant efficiency difference, nor did high pressures and the engine gave the same fuel efficiency on the road for vastly different expansion ratios. When it "should" have given much better economy with the higher steam temperature and greater expansion ratios. Stan Jakuba, one of the SES guys later stated that had they known that those extreme temperatures wouldn't have made any difference they would not have gone to the very great and expensive lengths to produce and use those temperatures.

My point here is that many of the experts in the steam power world completly ignore the results produced by SES and still believe that one must use steam temperatures as high as possible, as well as use very great expansion ratios. They ignore the truly scientific results and believe what they want, they are human and that is what humans do best! (a bit of humor there)

My point is that there is a huge difference between a scientist working with something real which can be tested and observed in a lab over and over again, then verified by any other scientist which conducts the same experiment and a scientist forming a theory based on something that can't be directly observed and tested in a lab.

My argument against "science" was aimed mainly at the ground diggers. In the Bernifal Cave there were paintings found of a mammoth combating a dinosaur, that section of the cave has been gated off and is now no longer open for observation.

Neanderthal children didn't have the heavy brows that are depicted by TV, they had thin skulls.

Jack Cuozzo, an orthodentist of 30 some years, in his book "Buried Alive" details his adventures with a portable cephalometric X-ray machine. This machine is used to hold a skull in perfect allignment with the X-ray so as to produce plates from which measurements of bone thickness can be taken. It is a very fascinating book, filled with data which he recorded, however it is also riddled with theory and religion so it will be difficult for many to read without becoming distracted by the religion aspect.

France is an example of a place where their tourism accounts for a lot of their jobs, said tourism is directly related to the Neanderthal caves and there is a lot of pressure from their government to have the "correct" results from their researchers! When Cuozzo was granted access to Le Moustier he was shocked to find that the display piece(formed from castings) was very different from the actual piece when x-rayed by himself, frankly he discovered that the jaw placement was way out of socket to produce a more ape looking face. Very few people have been granted access to the actual skull of Le Moustier and the drawings of it are what the scientists know about.

My point with Mount Saint Helens is that, the two eruptions produced layers of strata and a fully formed canyon. This was observed and studied. When Darwin was heading out on his voyage on the Beagle he stoped at a small river and was struck by the idea of a small, almost imperceptible action producing a significant if not grand result over a great length of time. This is a great way is the idea of evolution, a very small change occuring many times over a great period of time.

What has been proved is that strata and canyons can be produced by violent actions. Does this prove that all strata was produced this way, NO. Does this prove that all canyons were produced this way, NO.

What I am really trying to point out is that there are fields in which a discovery that disproves or at the least brings into question the theory that said field is using as a basis for all of their experiments is NOT accepted with open arms.

Let me put it this way, a scientist could take samples from the rock that hammer is embeded in, the metal head and the wooden handle and determine what they are composed of. That is true science.

Now the problem arises when one attempts to use those facts as a basis for a theory as to the how, what, why, where and when of it all. If one tried to find the closest examples or rock, metal and wood then one could apply via association what they were related to. However the issue is that the hammer in the rock is an individual.

Well, I could go on and on but this is getting way off subject and going no where.

Caleb Ramsby

[Ramsberg]

Here is a perfect example.

Over 50 examples of magnification lenses have been found in the excevations of Troy, 23 optical lenses are on display at Heraklian Museum from the ancient Cretan civilization and two found at Gordion the ancient capital of King Midus in central Turkey. One lense found in the sacred cave on Mount Ida in Crete is from around the fifth century BC., it can magnify with perfect clarity up to seven times and when held at a good distance up to twenty times but with distortion.

Ancient seals and coins often held micro script that was used such as the anti-counterfeit measures on our paper currency of today. These seals could only have been practically produced with a magnification of ones vision, as magnification is required to see them clearly.

However there are a great deal of academics, such as Professor Cyril Smith, who is a noted metallurgist and historian of science of MIT, proposed that such products were only used as decoration and in 1984 Smith stated that they were "mere baubles" and dismissed them all of any importance. In 1981 two medical scientists from the State University of New York, Loenard Gorelick and John Gwinnett stated that all of the micro script on the ancient seals was produced by people with myopia. Which is a condition of nearsightedness in which small objects are very clearly seen.

The reason for such statements is that the "permanent idea" regarding magnification dictates that it wasn't invented until the thirteenth century AD. Changing that "permanent idea" or theory would not only alter the timeline of a different discovery and the culture to which it should be attributed, but it would also negate DECADES of work, pride and prestige of a number of "very important academics".

The same is true of the invention of wrought iron, there are numerous examples of it in some areas predating copper working, although the "permanent idea" there is that a progression of technology occured and that is that.

The reality is that a great number of significant inventions were produced individually by people unaware of others work in a given technological area.

What really bothers me now is seeing the more and more popular idea that anything produced by the ancients that we can't understand or explain was a result of some alien influence or alien technology. That is just about the most disrespectfull idea out there regarding our ancients and their curiosity.

Uri Hofi is an example of someone who studied under a master, yet he questioned every single thing that was presented to him in regards to blacksmithing. Now he is a master and he disagrees with the methods and techniques that a great number of other masters use. Hofis hammering technique is not new, it is new to a great deal of people including him so yes he created it, but others created the same technique as his at different times and in different places. I for example studied the how and why of hammering when I first got into blacksmithing and developed a hammering technique that is almost identical to Hofis, yet I had never heard of Hofi when I started and although I had never seen anyone else hammer like me I was sure that others had used "my" technique centuries before I was born. There are hundreds of ways to do something and I for one don't believe that there is "one best way", nor should there be.

Caleb Ramsby

[Ramsberg]

The defination of theory.

1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

Caleb Ramsby

[Ramsberg]

OK, my main point which I never seem to get to is this.

There is fact based on fact and theory based on theory.

If someone uses a bomb type calorimeter, a device in which a fuel is burned in pure pressurized oxygen and surrounded with water, to determine the heat content of a given fuel. Then they are using facts, such as the specific heat of a gas, a liquid and a solid, to determine the calorie content of a fuel. That is a fact based on a fact.

Now if someone finds some man made article in the ground, then the question is Who, What, Where, When and How. They would then use other peoples theorys to produce their own theory as to the Who, What, Where, When and How of what they found. Hundreds, Thousands or Millions of years simply can not be reproduced in a lab, they can't be reproduced period.

The vast majority of archaeology is based on theories, which are based on theories. The only facts are the articles found and very often exactly what the article is and what it was used for is up for debate as much as who produced it and when it was produced. What it is composed of can be determined in a lab but that is about all that can be verified as a pure fact.

Caleb Ramsby

[Mr Smith]

Before this goes *too* far off topic - I agree with you on the points that sometimes you'll get an "expert" who sees what they want to see, *but* my main argument is that *theory* means something totally in a scientific context.
The definition you've used above is accurate, but for something we figure is correct, but have not tested, we use the word "hypothesis".

Totally agree with questioning what you've been told and testing it for yourself - that's what science is. :-)

Likewise, totally agree that people will "find" what is fashionable or convenient (look at the depiction of dinosaurs over the years) - after all, science is a human endeavour, and, well, like in all things, money talks! :-)

As for these out-of-place objects.... well.. The Greeks were well advanced, but some of the other stuff... I don't know.

Apologies for dragging this out yet further. :-)

[HWooldridge]

Caleb, thanks for the posts - I enjoyed reading them. Re the hammer: I live in Central Texas so can vouch for how fast the water here can turn to rock because of the mineral loading. A buddy of mine installs boilers and they will let aquifer water run through a system for 24 hrs because any small leaks will seal with limestone. Under the right circumstances, I can see an item getting encapsulated in 150 to 200 years.

[Timothy Miller]

If it were that old the handle would have been fossilized.

[HWooldridge]

I think it takes many millenia to make fossils...

A good 2/3 of Texas was under water in the distant past - much of the soil and underlying structure is limestone. In fact, it is far enough past neutral in base that it will corrode most metals pretty quickly. I have set drops on end touching the ground and they will turn to heavy rust in a few months.

I think the piece in the pic is forged wrought iron; it would be interesting to discover whether the "working end" has been steeled.

[iron woodrow]

rather an interesting read gentlemen, it smacks at times of the old proverb "preaching to the choir" and i believe that a further step to the saga would be for certain members of this conversation actually seek out archaeological scientists and continue the disscussion with this much gusto. it is easy to be an expert amongst those less well read than oneself, far harder amongst well read peers, but the next level comes when speaking to those far more read in a particular subject than you.**** having said 'read'; read- read and practiced.
woody.

[fciron]

The edges of the rock near the hammer look oxidized, so it probably was not completely enclosed in spite of the statement that is was only revealed when the rock was cracked open.

Generally, I tend towards the simplest explanation. Perhaps a highly mineral water deposited that stuff around the hammer in a relatively short time. Could be that the minerals kept the bugs out of the wood. Since the exposed face of the hammer resembles a relatively modern rock drill I doubt that it's of ancient origin. Blah, blah, blah. my 2 cents. :-)

[tomhw]

Here is a fun topic for me- a retired archaeologist I have some observations about the subject: Ramsberg is correct about the steps of the scientific method.

The scientific method is:
1: Form a Theory to make a prediction
2: Form an experiment to test the prediction
3: Conduct the experiment and observe the results
4: Use the results to modify the original theory

Archaeology uses the scientific method as best as it can but it fails at #3. It is necessarily limited because it cannot control all variables for a true test of a theory. It can use scientific practice for tangible objects; things like identifying material objects such as iron, lead, chert, bone, and etc. Scientific study of matter is generally an impersonal and objective exercise because nearly all of the variables can be controlled or accounted for.

I do not believe that it is a natural iron formation but an object made by art. The problem begins when we decide that the iron object is a hammer- that is a supposition on the part of the observer. How do we know that it is a hammer? This iron thing looks like a bush hammer to me. It might be a war hammer or it might be any one many other things

Look at the local geology. The matrix surrounding the iron object looks like limonite to me. Limonite is a sedimentary pricipate of iron, usually found over a clayey or silty straum, below a sandy stratum. Here is my bias, based on experience as an historical archologist: More likely the matrix is the remains of a heavily rusted can or iron bucket that has mostly combined with oxygen in damp soil into rust. Scientific examination can suggest that the matrix is either limonite or rust. Metallic iron is rare on the earth's crust while limonite, hemotite, and other iron ores are not rare.

The wood part of the find that pierces the iron looks to me like a handle- my bias. What were the environmental conditions? Wood usually does not last long in soil. There are, however, many examples of wood that have lasted millenia in soil, when enviromnental conditions permit it. Absent those conditions one must conclude that the wood is not very old.

Time for paper research and interviews with locals. What is the history of the near area? Has this been an occupied and built settled area? Has there ever been a quarry around here?

This is not science but it is reasoned, logical, disciplined forensics- guided and supported, when possible, by science.

[Mr Smith]

Enjoying the high-level discourse here, guys. :-)

[Drewed]

Cool and all, but I don't think it is all that old. Sedimentary rock can form in just a few decades, or less. Googleing around and looking at other pictures the hammer just doesn't look that old. Few hundred years at most.