In 1936, near red creak in London, Texas, something was found. it has become one of the most compelling pieces of evidence to suggest there is a lost history of Earth. Within a rock, Emma Hahn would notice a small piece of wood that appeared to be embedded, finding this strange she picks up the object for a closer inspection. Not really knowing what it was, it is lucky she was curious enough about the embedded wood to take it home. Nearly a decade later, presumably after the artefact had sat in max and Helen Hahns household for many years, their son max would spark an interest into what it could be. He breaks the rock apart, and to their amazement concealed within the stone was an ancient stone hammer. Now known as the London hammer, the rock that once grew around it, was claimed to have stopped growing around 400 million years ago, which could only mean the hammer would be even older. What if the maker of this hammer nearly half a billion years ago, stole the design from an ancient artefact he found himself, just how old can our history be? The metal of the hammerhead has been confirmed to consist of 96.6% iron, 2.6% chlorine, and 0.74% sulphur. And since its discovery in the 1930's and its subsequent re-entry into the air, it has not rusted. Around 1983 the hammer was acquired by creationist Carl E. Baugh, an active advocate of Paluxy River man tracks, and other alleged geologic anomalies, who began to call it the London Artefact. Many figures within the scientific and historical communities have strongly disagreed with the premise that the hammer be many hundreds of millions of years old, some even theorising that the limestone in which it was discovered could have formed in just a few centuries in perfect conditions. The variation in dates put forward by creationist scientists regarding the matter, has also just stoked the flames of debate, and indirectly aiding in the denial, of the artefact being truly ancient. However, there are certain factors regarding this object, like so many others in this criteria, that cannot be explained by accepted academia. Firstly, it is unthinkable for the modern theory of evolution to include such artefacts, this gives the creationists a foothold, yet they lack the material to continue an argument back many millions of years. they are indeed Opposite, yet both incorrect approaches. Thus, because of this, the most important features of the hammer, are conveniently ignored frequently by both sides of the modern coin. for example, the handle of the hammer is not made of wood anymore, it is now made of coal. it was once made of wood, but through a natural and unrushed process, the wood has been transformed into coal. And Whatever the reasons for these inconsistencies in reports, evidently the rock strata at the site are indeed Hensel Sand Member of the Travis Formation, Lower Cretaceous, upper Aptian stage, considered to be approximately 110 to 115 million years old by conventional geologists. This is fact, so by default that hammer is older, regardless of ulterior motives for publicising such artefacts, the truth they can tell, no matter how reluctant it may be to your world view, shouldn’t be ignored. However, the age of the rock formation maybe relevant to authenticity, it is irrelevant to the fact that the hammer does indeed exist. And that These artefacts create a proposition for historical data we should be approaching with open minds, if we are to progress as a species.