Hammer embedded in rock...

[David E.]

The clue to this story is the waterfall. There is a one in Knaresborough England where people hang up ordinary objects to calcify,a soft toy can turn to stone in several months, non porous objects can take up to 18 months, so it is entirely possible this hammer is relatively recent, link below
http://www.mothershiptonscave.com/the_petrifying_well.htm

[ThomasPowers]

Might be enough of that handle to do some dendrochronology on!

Bog Iron forms quite rapidly in certain conditions---so much so that bogs could be "mined for ore" every 25 to 30 years in some places.

Bogs also tend to preserve wood buried in them. (cf Bog Oak)

I see no problem with that hammer having been encased in limonite bonded sediment in quite a short time geologically speaking. As pointed out the use of iron/steel is a fairly recent thing and the shape of the hammer does not appear to resemble the older know ones too.

Going out on a limb I'd say sometime in the last couple of centuries.

[Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver]

Looks to me like fraud. The cavity looks like it was carved out as the cavity is larger than the hammer. Anything I've seen that was similar to this, the "stone" was in intimate contact with the object. Think about how it would look if you cast plaster around it. Why is there such a gap between the hammer and the stone?

[Dodge]

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.

Looks to me like fraud. The cavity looks like it was carved out as the cavity is larger than the hammer. Anything I've seen that was similar to this, the "stone" was in intimate contact with the object. Think about how it would look if you cast plaster around it. Why is there such a gap between the hammer and the stone?

The gaps could be erosion....

[Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver]

I don't think erosion would leave such sharp inside and outside corners. Looks carved out to me.

[southernforge]

I guess things have changed since I was in school. I was taught that the experimental method included a few more steps and in a slightly different order.

1) Review previous literature on a subject
2) Based upon the previous research and observations, derive an unanswered question.
3) Turn the question into a theory.
4) Convert the theory into a negative hypothesis
5) Design a research tool that may disprove the negative hypothesis.
6) Determine what statistics that you will use to analyze the data, keeping in mind both Type I and Type II errors (thus multivariate statistics being preferred to use of multiple statistical tests).
7) Perform the experiment in a reproducible manner, and collect the data.
8) Analyze the data using only the statistics previously identified (and not throw more statistics at the data until your point is proved, which is using statistics to lie).
9) Interpret the data, discuss it, and identify unanswered questions that will lead to future research.

What the professor said was that instead of following this scientific method, researchers instead:
- read literature
- come up with a theory
- design a research tool
- collect data
- use technology to throw massive statistical tests at the data until they find one that supports their theory (this last point the professor's main objection)

[HWooldridge]

The Spanish were in Texas in the 1500's but there were few regular settlements in that area of the state until after the 1850's due to constant harassment from the Indians. I doubt it's more than 200 years old.

[Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver]

I guess things have changed since I was in school. I was taught that the experimental method included a few more steps and in a slightly different order.

1) Review previous literature on a subject
2) Based upon the previous research and observations, derive an unanswered question.
3) Turn the question into a theory.
4) Convert the theory into a negative hypothesis
5) Design a research tool that may disprove the negative hypothesis.
6) Determine what statistics that you will use to analyze the data, keeping in mind both Type I and Type II errors (thus multivariate statistics being preferred to use of multiple statistical tests).
7) Perform the experiment in a reproducible manner, and collect the data.
8) Analyze the data using only the statistics previously identified (and not throw more statistics at the data until your point is proved, which is using statistics to lie).
9) Interpret the data, discuss it, and identify unanswered questions that will lead to future research.

What the professor said was that instead of following this scientific method, researchers instead:
- read literature
- come up with a theory
- design a research tool
- collect data
- use technology to throw massive statistical tests at the data until they find one that supports their theory (this last point the professor's main objection)

And then came the internet!

[dkunkler]

Wasn't it Ben Franklin who said Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see and all of what you find on the internet?

[Raymond Sauvage]

A simple radiocarbon dating sample from the handle would easily tell the age. <0,1 grams is enough theese days.
Of course creationists tend to dismiss radiocarbon dating ...

[iron woodrow]

ah but certain posters were doubting dendochronology as an unproven by science method werent they?

[Dan P.]

Why isn't anybody curious about the alloying of iron with chlorine?
And on the subject of how long it takes for something to fossilize, you want to see what's going on in the back of my refrigerator.
-Dan

[Francis Trez Cole]