Vinland Map News -- New Tartar Relation Found
Hu McCulloch
has informally announced the finding of a second, older copy of the Tartar
Relation, the previously unknown manuscript that was bound
with the controversial Vinland Map when it was first discovered.
For more details, see my Vinland Map website, at
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/vinland/vinland.htm
Guzman's discovery removes the possibility that the TR-inspired
captions on the VM could prove the VM to be invalid, but by itself
does not prove that the VM _is_ authentic.
Guzman's discovery does remove any taint that the TR may have had
from its association with the VM, and quashes the doubts raised by
Maddison (1974) about the language of the TR.
The VM is to be the topic of a NOVA documentary late this year.
Cheers,
Hu McCulloch
Econ Dept.
Ohio State Univ.
D. Spencer Hines
Thanks for posting this.
Please give us advance warning on the NOVA special.
Will you make an appearance in it?
DSH
"Hu McCulloch" <mccul...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:c08j9m$f78$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
D. Spencer Hines
"However, any independent doubts that there may have been about the
language of the TR, along with any taint that it may have received from
its association with the controversial VM, have now been completely
removed by the discovery of a second copy of de Bredia's TR in a library
in Luzern, Switzerland, by Beauvais scholar Prof. Gregory Guzman of
Bradley University (Guzman 2004). It is bound together with a volume of
Beauvais's Speculum Historiale, just as the Yale TR must originally have
been. The final chapters of the SH draw on Carpini's version of his
mission, so that it would have been natural to have bound an alternative
account of the mission together with it.
The Luzern TR+SH was copied out in 1338-40, approximately 100 years
before the Yale TR+SH, and therefore is the more definitive version of
the TR. Although the Luzern TR+SH spent most of its career in a
now-defunct Cistercian monastery in Luzern, a legal document reported by
Guzman places it in the diocese of Basel in 1420, just two decades
before the Yale TR+SH(+VM?) was copied there. It is therefore not
improbable that the Yale TR was actually copied from the Luzern TR.
Although the new TR by no means validates the VM, it does eliminate the
possibility that its TR-derived captions prove it to be a modern hoax.
However, if the VM is indeed a modern forgery, it is surprising that the
forger would have chosen to bind it with what at the time was the
unique, and therefore extraordinarily rare and valuable, known copy of a
medieval manuscript. It would have been adequate for the forger's
purposes to have bound the VM with a commonplace and indisputably
genuine manuscript, such as a volume of the SH itself; Marston was able
to pick up the Yale SH volume by itself, for example, for only 75
[pounds sterling -- DSH]. Although the Asian portion of the VM includes
details unique to de Bredia's account, these could even more effectively
have been taken from Carpini's own record of the mission. Instead he or
she chose to reduce the independent value the TR would have had by
removing it from its important original context and having it "keep
company," as Maddison put it, with the hotly disputed VM.
Guzman is currently working on a detailed comparison of the two TR
texts. Unfortunately, he found no map of any kind in the Luzern volume.
[...]
"Guzman's (2004) finding of a second Tartar Relation demonstrates beyond
the shadow of a doubt that the Yale TR itself is genuine, despite the
numerous misgivings raised by Maddison (1974). If the handwriting on
the TR and VM can be shown to be the same to within a forensic margin of
error, the VM would be proven genuine."
Hu McCullough
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/vinland/vinland.htm
Good Point....
Marston, Painter, Skelton and Witten all seem to have previously judged
the handwriting on the TR and VM to be the same ---- but we do need
handwriting experts to do it in 2004 and certify the results within a
forensic margin of error ---- or say the handwriting differs.
British experts should also be involved.
Of course, two scribes for the VM and TR may have been involved ----
unless we find we can definitely rule that out for other valid reasons.
DSH
Inger E Johansson
"Hu McCulloch" <mccul...@osu.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:c08j9m$f78$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
I don't know if I am the only member of this group who had the pleasure of
receiving new information from archaeologic excavations in Russia and Sweden
in my mailbox yesterday. The Khazar studies show a much much closer contact
between Sweden and the Khazars as well as Sweden and the Tartars than what's
been mentioned related to the Vinland Map.
I had in my D-essay/thesis where I analysed Lars Gahrn's Dissertation
'Svearike' referenses to the Khazarpapers showing a close contact in 920-945
AD. Little did I know that the contacts can be shown to have existed into
14th century.
If anyone of you had mails in your mailbox yesterday from the scholars
studying this, I suggest that you read them and their ref. very carefully.
They are important also for the Vinland Map connection.
Inger E
Martin Reboul
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:wdSVb.48545$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
Yawn... we all got these weeks ago Inger - where have you been?
Hu McCulloch
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@notelia.com> wrote in message
news:wdSVb.48545$mU6.1...@newsb.telia.net...
>
Hi, Inger!
The "Tartars" of the "Tartar Relation" are in fact the Mongols, who
obliterated
the Khazars, i.e. swept them up into their own hordes. While undoubtedly
the
Swedes had their own contacts with the Khazars and/or Mongols, the Vinland
Map and Tartar Relation mention none of this. This "Tartar Relation" is an
account by Franciscan friar "C. de Bredia" of the Carpini mission that
traveled
from Poland to the capital of the Mongols in 1245-1247 AD. This mission wa
s
well known from Carpini's own account, but the de Bredia version that had
been recently
bound with the Vinland Map when it came to light in 1957 was thought to be
unique at the time, and acquired some taint by its association with the VM.
The VM itself contained references to "Leifr and Bjarni" discovering
Vinland, along
with sketches of Vinland and Greenland in the North Atlantic. It also has
references to the Tartar Relation version of the Carpini mission in its
Asiatic portions,
but no mention of any Swedish or Norse expeditions in that direction.
(Not to say that there weren't any, of course.)
See my webpage above for a new color-enhanced photo of the VM, plus
discussion of the relevance of the new TR to the authenticity of the VM.
-- Hu McCulloch
D. Spencer Hines
deal with the Vinland Map across the board.
It is the FIRST thing one should read to find out about the fascinating
dispute concerning this document.
Solidly Professional...As Well As Fair And Balanced...
DSH
"Hu McCulloch" <mccul...@osu.edu> wrote in message
news:c09891$he5$1...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
Inger E Johansson
Yes of course they were. But you seem to miss the point. Both had contacts
with the Swedish Rus and Varjags. The Tartar had held that contact since the
Ostrogoths with Scandinavian names were given the rights of Emperor Julian
to together with the Tartars living east of the later Khazar territory to
act take cargo north of the Persian back and forth to China.
In later medieval age this contact still existed and the key is the contact
between the Scandinavian Rus and Varjags, the later in many cases related to
the Folkunga Dynasty btw, and the Khazars.
If you did receive mail the other day I suggest that you look closer at the
coins resp. the excavated child's grave.
For Historians noting the facts during Migration Age please read Orosius,
observe not King Alfred's Orosius, chapter 7 compare that with Zosimus
chapter 6-7 and with works of the Sofists.
For Late Medieval Age you better go for some of the Arabian Historians and
Geographers. They are many but almost any will do. Many of the titles are
the same and include the words 'travel around the world'.
Inger E
David B
>
>Hi, Inger!
>
>The "Tartars" of the "Tartar Relation" are in fact the Mongols, who
>obliterated
>the Khazars, i.e. swept them up into their own hordes. While undoubtedly
>the
>Swedes had their own contacts with the Khazars and/or Mongols, the Vinland
>Map and Tartar Relation mention none of this.
Evidently Hu has not been introduced to Inger, who has read everything
about Scandinavian history in its original language (including a great deal
of material too precious to share with ordinary researchers)- and
translated it into a truly unique vision, unrecognisable to any
conventional historian...
David B.
Inger E Johansson
you should have done your homework better. Hu and I have shared messages now
and then for the last 6 1/2 years most regarding KRS but also other things
as for example a map which you David B still are unaware of it's existence.
Once again you managed to paint yourself into the corner!
Shame on you for your renewed attack on me.
Inger E
"David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:fa1Wb.8060$q%6.22...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
David B
Inger E Johansson wrote in message ...
>> about Scandinavian history in its original language (including a great
>> deal of material too precious to share with ordinary researchers)-
>> and translated it into a truly unique vision, unrecognisable to any
>> conventional historian...
>
>you should have done your homework better. Hu and I have shared messages
now
>and then for the last 6 1/2 years most regarding KRS but also other things
>as for example a map which you David B still are unaware of it's
existence.
Which rather emphasises one of my main points, doesn't it!
At least when I make dramatic assertions I (like Hu) make background
material easily available:
http://homepages.tesco.net/~trochos/vinland/index.htm
David B.
Inger E Johansson
I have seen your lines and reject most of your assumptions. Contrary to Hu
who has good knowledge of source valuation, you don't.
Simple as that.
Inger E
"David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:_w4Wb.8895$q%6.22...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net...
Daryl Krupa
> David B,
> you should have done your homework better. Hu and I have shared messages now
> and then for the last 6 1/2 years most regarding KRS but also other things
> as for example a map which you David B still are unaware of it's existence.
>
> Once again you managed to paint yourself into the corner!
> Shame on you for your renewed attack on me.
>
> Inger E
Shame on you for disclosing the existence of that map!
Now that he is aware of its existence, all manner of terrible things
will happen to the great library in the basement of the ruined pile of
rubble that landrise only brought up out of the sea last Tuesday.
How can anyone do serious research into these matters if you keep
flapping your loose lips at every man who talks to you, Inger?
Sheesh!
A.L.
Robert Stonehouse
<mccul...@osu.edu> wrote:
>Vincent de Beauvais scholar Gregory Guzman of Bradley University
>has informally announced the finding of a second, older copy of the Tartar
>Relation, the previously unknown manuscript that was bound
>with the controversial Vinland Map when it was first discovered.
>For more details, see my Vinland Map website, at
>http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/vinland/vinland.htm
>
>Guzman's discovery removes the possibility that the TR-inspired
>captions on the VM could prove the VM to be invalid, but by itself
>does not prove that the VM _is_ authentic.
That is, no-one can now argue "VM is a fake because it quotes TR and
TR is a fake". But perhaps that was never a very strong possibility
and more probable ones are not removed.
The way VM quotes TR is strange. VM has two errors in names quoted
from the first page of the TR MS that are both difficult to explain.
First, at the bottom of the first column in TR the name Prussia
appears. The scribe of TR has made two mistakes. The words should be
"a prusia", 'from Prussia', but the space between the two has been
missed and so has the letter R. (In TR, names of countries begin with
a small letter intead of a capital more often than not: see for
example "polonia" at the end of the third line of this first column.
The letters "apu" end the last line of the first column and "sia"
begin the first line of the second.)
VM has picked up this wrong version and shows the non-existent name
"Apusia" (with a capital this time) instead of Prussia. What did the
scribe of VM think he was doing? If he thought Apusia was the right
name, how did he know where to put it on the map? How can he have
thought it was right, and put it there in the large writing he uses
for country names, when he surely knew there was no such country?
More, the omission of the letter R has been repaired by the corrector
of TR. That must have been done during the correction process
immediately after the first copying, because it must have been done
from another MS and MSS of TR were not two a penny. Someone who came
along much later would hardly have had a MS available from which to
make corrections. So the scribe of VM has ignored a correction that
was in front of his eyes and made sense of what he was writing. Why
should he do that?
Secondly, in the second column of the same page, the sixth line from
the bottom ends with the river name "tatar" and continues a new
sentence on the next line with "tata.n." (where "n" is an abbreviation
for "enim").There is no full stop shown at the end of the first line.
VM has taken the two words together and produced the odd and incorrect
river name "Tatartata", again introducing an initial capital where TR
has a small letter.
It is not possible to suggest that "tatartata" is what the scribe of
TR intended. At this point, though he misses a full stop, his meaning
is quite clear. The word "enim" is regularly the second in its
sentence. This indicates the scribe of VM was not the same person as
the scribe of TR. How did VM manage to get another big name wrong? (On
the same page, again at the end of one line and the beginning of
another.)
There must be a strong suggestion that the scribe of VM was looking
for ways to tie up VM with TR by deliberately creating 'conjunctive
errors'. In two places on the same page we can see an error arising;
VM misunderstands a minor omission in TR and produces a big,
meaningless error out of a small one, easy to see through. Who does
that kind of thing, except a modern scribe, trying to tie in his
forgery with a genuinely old MS? The mistake was to do it twice,
gilding the lily and giving the game away.
(It will be very interesting if we find out what the new MS of TR says
at these points. Will there ever be a collation?)
--
Robert Stonehouse
To mail me, replace invalid with uk. Inconvenience regretted.
Inger E Johansson
while your analyse is very interesting and you do have more than one good
point, I think it's fair to mention that alike misspelling occurs more than
once in several of the older maps as well as that one and the same name in a
diploma from Sweden or Norway(just given as examples since I know them best)
can be spelt in up to three different ways in one and the same diploma from
period 14th-15th century. That part of your analyse is the weak part as far
as I see it.
Inger E
David
A fascinating article Hu. Thanks for posting it!
David B.
<4029cc2...@news.cityscape.co.uk>...
>
>There must be a strong suggestion that the scribe of VM was looking
>for ways to tie up VM with TR by deliberately creating 'conjunctive
>errors'. In two places on the same page we can see an error arising;
>VM misunderstands a minor omission in TR and produces a big,
>meaningless error out of a small one, easy to see through. Who does
>that kind of thing, except a modern scribe, trying to tie in his
>forgery with a genuinely old MS? The mistake was to do it twice,
>gilding the lily and giving the game away.
It fits in very well with the playfulness of the VM- I can't help wondering
if it's not so much a mistake as a Clue (of which there are quite a few to
be seen if you assume the VM to be a 20th-century creation).
>(It will be very interesting if we find out what the new MS of TR says
>at these points. Will there ever be a collation?)
In a similar vein- Hu McCulloch's web-page mentions, in a slightly negative
sort of way, Kenneth Towe's rejoinder to Jacqueline Olin in the 1 Feb issue
of "Analytical Chemistry" (as mentioned pre-publication by Mike Hopper).
Would I be right to suspect that this contained nothing of great
significance?
David B.