Message from discussion The Vinland Map's Ink

Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Ken Towe" <ken.t...@alumni.duke.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: The Vinland Map's Ink
Date: 31 Mar 2005 18:13:45 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <1112321625.658346.119370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
References: <6asg41dqfhkjmq29lilnucsts9adcop3bl@4ax.com>
   <ri22e.69659$7z6.16003@lakeread04>
   <BD32e.19308$lY5.15572@fe07.lga>
   <d2anod0all@enews4.newsguy.com>
   <io1i419noc19uio0kpvgiq8eo44l7qllot@4ax.com>
   <b_92e.69927$7z6.57253@lakeread04>
   <4249414e$0$797$dbd41001@news.wanadoo.nl>
   <lcgj419cr4f7230k4skvdiqjsqin9q6ll9@4ax.com>
   <gRl2e.72381$7z6.29039@lakeread04>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.220.99.62
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1112321630 21371 127.0.0.1 (1 Apr 2005 02:13:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 02:13:50 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.220.99.62;
   posting-account=GL9Z1wwAAAD8cQvvWLysn_6ij-O1FGw-

Herewith my comments (Feb, 2004) directly to Jim Enterline (and a few
others via e-mail):

I am willing to accept the preference of anyone who can honestly say
that the story offered by Jim Enterline is plausible and
believable..BUT with the proviso that ALL of his story is explained,
not just bits and pieces about the cleaning part. This goes, as well,
for the other potential explanations for the ink on the Vinland Map by
those who favor authenticity. As I have said earlier, ALL of the
evidence needs to be placed into any scenario that will explain the
Vinland Map as an authentic document. So...Let's "review the bidding"
on plausibility...

ENTERLINE'S STORY: He accepts the presence of modern anatase (McCrone;
Brown & Clark) and the absence of iron (Cahill et al.). He accepts that
the ink is unlike most all other known medieval inks (McCrone;
Baynes-Cope). In the appendix of a private publication he sees the
Vinland Map as an amateurishly done product "with a demonstrably
anomalous layering" and views it as "merely the remains of an imperfect
restoration." He suggests a double application of ink by a scribe who
inexplicably (hastily?) used a non-traditional "pure tannin" ink
initially. The scribe is assumed not to have noticed its difference
with the usual iron-gall inks, e.g., a pale color or its different
behavior while penning, either before, during or after drawing the
entire map. However, "after he realized his original ink was not
turning black" the scribe (hastily?) retraced it...with incredible
accuracy. Additionally, the story requires a subsequent TOTAL cleaning
of an already poorly visible ink and the intervening parchment in a
bleaching process with the potential to dissolve the tannin as well as
soften the parchment. The process adds modern anatase from the coating
of special paper, not only to the scribe's second overlying ink
application but also to the original underlying ink. No anatase from
the overlying paper is added to the parchment which, being semi-tanned
protein (collagen) should also be softened and solubilized. (The
cellulose in paper is much less reactive to "Clorox"; parchment is
proteinaceous). In offering this story, Enterline provides none of the
usual scientific details (sources of materials, concentrations of
reagents, times of application, etc.) on the process he speculates was
used to clean the map. He offers no explanation for the yellow color of
the ink, nor shows that his cleaning process will actually work on
parchment, the procedure having been tested on paper only.

All of this is implausible and certainly is not parsimonious. I think,
given all of the evidence, an impartial jury would agree.

JIM replied (excerpted from some other comments):

"I'm also not quite clear why Ken repeated this passage after I stated
in my previous message that I was willing to replace this scenario with
Jacque's carbon separation hypothesis, which I will experiment with
soon.  This would leave the scenario with only one "unexpected event,"
the bleaching."

In short, the published Enterline theory is no longer the theory that
Enterline now embraces. He has gone back to his "kitchen-table" drawing
board. We will have to await the revised edition! But, if it is like
his first version, don't expect to find any of the usual scientific
details one expects in a normal scientific publication.

The Vinland Map, unlike the two accompanying documents and most other
medieval documents, was drawn with an ink that is not an iron-gall ink.
It has two components...(1) an underlying yellow component that
contains anatase of modern commercial aspect (free of any clay
minerals!) and (2) an overlying black ink that is carbon-based and is
flaking off. There is no evidence of anatase anywhere on the parchment
itself. Put all of this together and it certainly doesn't appear to be
like anything medieval.