Vineland
Rodney Kelp
creator of the map copied an older version that may have been in poor
condition. But there is no doubt about the viking findings in newfoundland
and labrador. We know they were there before Columbus so it doesn't change a
thing about the map.
--
Martyn Harrison
<Rodney...@hotmail.com> said:
The Norse did arrive in America around 1000 yes, and this isn't in any serious
dispute.
I.E_Johansson
"Rodney Kelp" <Rodney...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:frmdnSb87ML...@adelphia.com...
I am not sure that the so called report is correct. The Danes haven't
presented their analyse which will be next month if nothing has changed in
their timetable.
No matter which - the map is an exact copy of what it shows, but the western
parts of Vinland is left out from the origin's drawings (1124 map that was
presented to the Pope and due to the Medici Pope came to Villa Medici where
it's last seen 1939.
Inger E
>
> --
>
>
Tom McDonald
The evidence changes a great deal about the map. It is now far
more likely than not to be a 20th century product, invented out
of whole cloth, than an authentic early artifact.
What it *doesn't* change is the fact of Viking presence in
North America.
Now the questions are centered around the extent,
geographically and temporally, and nature of pre-Columbian
Scandinavian contact, and whether it was the only such contact
with the New World before ca. 1500.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Michael Kuettner
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:QguPd.106$EN6...@fe07.lga...
> Rodney Kelp wrote:
> > So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930. Perhaps the
> > creator of the map copied an older version that may have been in poor
> > condition. But there is no doubt about the viking findings in
newfoundland
> > and labrador. We know they were there before Columbus so it doesn't
change a
> > thing about the map.
> >
>
> The evidence changes a great deal about the map. It is now far
> more likely than not to be a 20th century product, invented out
> of whole cloth, than an authentic early artifact.
>
> What it *doesn't* change is the fact of Viking presence in
> North America.
>
Hardly.
Greenland, yes.
Where in North America ?
> Now the questions are centered around the extent,
> geographically and temporally, and nature of pre-Columbian
> Scandinavian contact, and whether it was the only such contact
> with the New World before ca. 1500.
>
Contact isn't presence.
While there might have been contact, archaeological findings
don't show presence.
The Norse (if they ever have been to the continent) certainly
left no traces.
So what ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Michael Kuettner
"I.E_Johansson" <inger_e....@telia.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:6EqPd.17219$d5.1...@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Rodney Kelp" <Rodney...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:frmdnSb87ML...@adelphia.com...
> > So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930. Perhaps the
> > creator of the map copied an older version that may have been in poor
> > condition. But there is no doubt about the viking findings in
newfoundland
> > and labrador. We know they were there before Columbus so it doesn't
change
> a
> > thing about the map.
>
> I am not sure that the so called report is correct.
That's because you lack a brain.
> The Danes haven't presented their analyse which will be next month
> if nothing has changed in their timetable.
But they will present something; contrary to you, bonehead.
> No matter which - the map is an exact copy of what it shows,
I've got a picture from Hubble showing vacuum; that means
it's a map of the thing between your ears.
> but the western
> parts of Vinland is left out from the origin's drawings (1124 map that was
> presented to the Pope and due to the Medici Pope came to Villa Medici
where
> it's last seen 1939.
And more bullshit.
A map that doesn't exist; just like your intellect.
Why don't you try to get a job instead of posting garbage to
Usenet ?
Tom McDonald
> "Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:QguPd.106$EN6...@fe07.lga...
>
>>Rodney Kelp wrote:
>>
>>>So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930. Perhaps the
>>>creator of the map copied an older version that may have been in poor
>>>condition. But there is no doubt about the viking findings in
>
> newfoundland
>
>>>and labrador. We know they were there before Columbus so it doesn't
>
> change a
>
>>>thing about the map.
>>>
>>
>>The evidence changes a great deal about the map. It is now far
>>more likely than not to be a 20th century product, invented out
>>of whole cloth, than an authentic early artifact.
>>
>>What it *doesn't* change is the fact of Viking presence in
>>North America.
>>
>
> North America ?
> Hardly.
> Greenland, yes.
> Where in North America ?
Newfoundland. Whether Newfies or other Canuks like it,
Newfoundland is part of Canada.
LAM was inhabited for something like a decade. It defies
imagination to think they didn't poke around a little while they
were there, so I think it safe to say Vikings touched land in
the vicinity, too.
>
>
>>Now the questions are centered around the extent,
>>geographically and temporally, and nature of pre-Columbian
>>Scandinavian contact, and whether it was the only such contact
>>with the New World before ca. 1500.
>>
>
> Contact isn't presence.
Yes. That's why I made the distinction.
> While there might have been contact, archaeological findings
> don't show presence.
They do at LAM.
As noted, I think it reasonable to suppose that they didn't
limit their activities to that small location. Normal
archaeological procedure would suggest that surveys and
excavations in the Maritimes be conducted with that in mind, and
finds possibly traceable to the Norse be examined in their
context for what they may say on the subject.
> The Norse (if they ever have been to the continent) certainly
> left no traces.
I don't think 'certainly' is the right word. 'Apparently' or
'as far as we know now' is closer to the mark. IMHO. But I'm
open to being shown wrong.
BTW, do you really want to argue that LAM isn't on the North
American continent because it is on an island? It sounds to me
something like those who say Columbus didn't discover the
Americas because he only set foot on islands in the western
hemisphere, but with less rationale as Newfoundland is a very
large island very close to the continent.
> So what ?
So it's an interesting minor sideshow in North American
archaeology.
Daryl Krupa
"Newfs or other Canucks", or "Newfs of mainlanders", if you please.
-
Daryl Krupa
Tom McDonald
>>"Newfies or other Canuks"
>
>
> "Newfs or other Canucks", or "Newfs of mainlanders", if you please.
Sorry Daryl. I'm clearly working from an old style manual.
Seppo Renfors
Rodney Kelp wrote:
>
> So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930.
Not possible.
> Perhaps the
> creator of the map copied an older version that may have been in poor
> condition. But there is no doubt about the viking findings in newfoundland
> and labrador. We know they were there before Columbus so it doesn't change a
> thing about the map.
>
> --
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
nibb...@lycos.com
Seppo Renfors wrote:
> Rodney Kelp wrote:
> >
> > So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930.
>
> Not possible.
>
Any details on why it isn't possible that it's a hoax?
##minty
I.E_Johansson
"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:420F588E...@not.com.au...
>
>
> Rodney Kelp wrote:
> >
> > So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930.
>
> Not possible.
Agreed. The study that came up with such a conclusion leaves much to be
asked for before it's to be taken seriously. Unfortunatly for that scholar.
>
> > Perhaps the
> > creator of the map copied an older version that may have been in poor
> > condition. But there is no doubt about the viking findings in
newfoundland
> > and labrador. We know they were there before Columbus so it doesn't
change a
> > thing about the map.
> >
> > --
>
Inger E
Doug Weller
>
>"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
>news:420F588E...@not.com.au...
>>
>>
>> Rodney Kelp wrote:
>> >
>> > So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930.
>>
>> Not possible.
>
>Agreed. The study that came up with such a conclusion leaves much to be
>asked for before it's to be taken seriously. Unfortunatly for that scholar.
>>
You've decided it's not possible for the map to be a hoax? So you aren't
waiting for the Danish study then.
[SNIP]
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Alan Crozier
news:2ebv01d81c52hmr0d...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:46:04 GMT, in sci.archaeology, I.E_Johansson wrote:
>
> >
> >"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:420F588E...@not.com.au...
> >>
> >>
> >> Rodney Kelp wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930.
> >>
> >> Not possible.
> >
> >Agreed. The study that came up with such a conclusion leaves much to be
> >asked for before it's to be taken seriously. Unfortunatly for that
scholar.
> >>
> You've decided it's not possible for the map to be a hoax? So you aren't
> waiting for the Danish study then.
No need. If the Danish experts have any sense of Scandinavian patriotism or
pride at all, they will reach the "right" conclusions.
And if they reach the "wrong" conclusions they can be safely ignored as
naysayers since we Scandinavians (old and new) know in advance what the
conclusion *should* be.
That's how science works. Thought you knew that.
;-)
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
I.E_Johansson
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:2ebv01d81c52hmr0d...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:46:04 GMT, in sci.archaeology, I.E_Johansson wrote:
>
> >
> >"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:420F588E...@not.com.au...
> >>
> >>
> >> Rodney Kelp wrote:
> >> >
> >> > So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930.
> >>
> >> Not possible.
> >
> >Agreed. The study that came up with such a conclusion leaves much to be
> >asked for before it's to be taken seriously. Unfortunatly for that
scholar.
> >>
> You've decided it's not possible for the map to be a hoax? So you aren't
> waiting for the Danish study then.
On the contrary. If the map is genuine or a hoax has nothing to do with that
the study proclaiming it a hoax isn't up to schoarly standard. You can reach
a correct result both from valid and non-valid argument. The former is a
correct way, the later isn't valid at all no matter the conclusion it
presents.
It's like the students who spent 2 pages writing the figures for a
Mathematic problem down. One has used the correct figures and correct
approach and the result is valid. The other has written down the correct
figures but mixed the rest up in a mambo-jambo but reach the right result.
The former student gets full point, not the later.
Inger E
Doug Weller
>
>"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.removethisdemon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
>news:2ebv01d81c52hmr0d...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 18:46:04 GMT, in sci.archaeology, I.E_Johansson wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
>> >news:420F588E...@not.com.au...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Rodney Kelp wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930.
>> >>
>> >> Not possible.
>> >
>> >Agreed. The study that came up with such a conclusion leaves much to be
>> >asked for before it's to be taken seriously. Unfortunatly for that
>scholar.
>> >>
>> You've decided it's not possible for the map to be a hoax? So you aren't
>> waiting for the Danish study then.
>
>On the contrary. If the map is genuine or a hoax has nothing to do with that
>the study proclaiming it a hoax isn't up to schoarly standard. You can reach
>a correct result both from valid and non-valid argument. The former is a
>correct way, the later isn't valid at all no matter the conclusion it
>presents.
Ah, you're having comprehension problems again. Seppo wrote that it
wasn't possible that the Vinland map was a hoax and the ink dated after
1930. You wrote 'agreed'. But now you say you weren't really agreeing
with Seppo but commenting on a report. So actually, you don't agree with
Seppo, who you presunmably think should wait for more evidence, eg the
Danish study.
>
>It's like the students who spent 2 pages writing the figures for a
>Mathematic problem down. One has used the correct figures and correct
>approach and the result is valid. The other has written down the correct
>figures but mixed the rest up in a mambo-jambo but reach the right result.
>The former student gets full point, not the later.
>
But that wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to your agreement
with Seppo's statement.... but never mind.
Doug
Alaca
> On the contrary. If the map is genuine or a hoax has nothing to do
> with that the study proclaiming it a hoax isn't up to schoarly
> standard. You can reach a correct result both from valid and
> non-valid argument. The former is a correct way, the later isn't
> valid at all no matter the conclusion it presents.
>
> It's like the students who spent 2 pages writing the figures for a
> Mathematic problem down. One has used the correct figures and
> correct approach and the result is valid. The other has written
> down the correct figures but mixed the rest up in a mambo-jambo but
> reach the right result. The former student gets full point, not the
> later.
>
> Inger E
And the scholiar who has written down the wrong figures
and mixed the rest up in a mambo-jambo
and reached the wrong result?
--
P.A.
Steve Marcus
Doug, you give her far too much credit.
What she meant by this: "On the contrary. If the map is genuine or a hoax
has nothing to do with that the study proclaiming it a hoax isn't up to
schoarly standard. You can reach a correct result both from valid and
non-valid argument. The former is a
correct way, the later isn't valid at all no matter the conclusion it
presents."
is simply that if the Danish study concludes that the Vinland Map is a hoax
(not genuine) then the Danish study will, perforce, be wrong, and not up to
a "schoarly (sic, scholarly) standard. Surely you remember the old comedy
routine "heads I win, tails you lose." Inger knows that the Vinland Map is
authentic, and any study that proclaims otherwise is simply wrong, no matter
how strong the evidence produced and/or considered by the study might be.
>
> Doug
>
> --
> Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
> Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
>
>
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
I.E_Johansson
So was I. which you obviously didn't understand. The one follow of the
other.
>but never mind.
Same here. Either you can go from actual written to the abstract analyse of
what's written and way, or you can't.
Inger E
Alaca
> "Doug Weller" skrevi
>>>
>> But that wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to your
>> agreement with Seppo's statement....
>
> So was I. which you obviously didn't understand. The one follow of
> the other.
>
>> but never mind.
>
> Same here. Either you can go from actual written to the abstract
> analyse of what's written and way, or you can't.
>
> Inger E
Why are you ignoring Steve Marcus' comment?
--
P.A.
Seppo Renfors
The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good
starting point.
All this has been dealt with before, many times over. The Naysayer
Cult NEEDS to establish the (A) availability of anatase (they haven't)
(B) the SOURCE of this anatase (they haven't) (C) an ink manufacturer
using mass produced anatase in their ink (they haven't) (D) that the
ink was available locally where the map was produced (they haven't)
(D) in case they argue "anatase" then how that was available locally
(they haven't). It has to be remembered it is a raw material for
making PAINT - not ink.
A further problem is it was not produced in Europe after 1932 - when
they changed to a better product - rutile! I have a feeling anatase
production was fairly limited even then in Europe up to the time it
was discontinued -IIRC. The map isn't claimed to have been "faked"
until some time after 1936 by one of the more favoured yarn spinners -
a time when NO ANATASE was being produced commercially in Europe!
The naysayer's 'argument' is "anatase was produced at that time"
(where in the world doesn't matter to them) and the "VM contains
anatase" and because of those two totally unrelated matters they
conclude "therefor the VM is a fake".
Using the same naysayer "logic", any man is automatically guilty of
rape, because they have the "tools" to commit rape with! THAT is the
extent of the naysayer Cult's "logic"!
I also know that anatase was NOT made anywhere NEAR where the map was
reputedly made (including by naysayers). The so called "logic" also
ignores other methods known to have existed that does produce anatase
for ink making at the relevant time. Not to mention "pouncing" with a
substance (kaolin) that is KNOWN to contain anatase of a uniform
enough size as discovered on the map.
Steve Marcus
"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.com.au> wrote in message
news:42119FA8...@not.com.au...
>
>
> nibb...@lycos.com wrote:
>>
>> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>> > Rodney Kelp wrote:
>> > >
>> > > So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930.
>> >
>> > Not possible.
>> >
>>
>> Any details on why it isn't possible that it's a hoax?
>
> The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good
> starting point.
Nope. Simply wrong. The ink has been shown to be a product that could not
have been produced in the 15th century. What shows this is the presence of
anatase having a particular crystal size range, uniformity of shape or the
crystals, and lacking in clumping of the crystals.
>
> All this has been dealt with before, many times over. The Naysayer
> Cult NEEDS to establish the (A) availability of anatase (they haven't)
Commercial anatase fitting the profile of that found on the map was indeed
available circa 1920 and later.
See: http://webexhibits.org/pigments/indiv/recipe/tiwhite.html
> (B) the SOURCE of this anatase (they haven't)
Wrong. See the above link, and note that Kirsten Seaver has discussed the
early commercial manufacture of anatase of the sort that fits the profile of
that found on the VM. IIRC, Kronos, mentioned in the above link, is a
successor to that company.
(C) an ink manufacturer
> using mass produced anatase in their ink (they haven't)
Wrong. The point isn't that the person who created the VM in the 20th
century bought ink from a manufacturer. It is quite likely that this person
made the ink him/herself.
(D) that the
> ink was available locally where the map was produced (they haven't)
More nonsense. See (C) above.
> (D) in case they argue "anatase" then how that was available locally
> (they haven't). It has to be remembered it is a raw material for
> making PAINT - not ink.
Nothing prevents one from adding anatase to a home brewed ink.
>
> A further problem is it was not produced in Europe after 1932 - when
> they changed to a better product - rutile! I have a feeling anatase
> production was fairly limited even then in Europe up to the time it
> was discontinued -IIRC. The map isn't claimed to have been "faked"
> until some time after 1936 by one of the more favoured yarn spinners -
> a time when NO ANATASE was being produced commercially in Europe!
Nonsense. See the above link.
>
> The naysayer's 'argument' is "anatase was produced at that time"
> (where in the world doesn't matter to them) and the "VM contains
> anatase" and because of those two totally unrelated matters they
> conclude "therefor the VM is a fake".
Nonsense. The argument has to due with the crystal size, uniformity of the
crystals, and non-clumping of the crystals, all of which were not achievable
in the 15th century when the VM was, if authentic, supposed to have been
created.
>
> Using the same naysayer "logic", any man is automatically guilty of
> rape, because they have the "tools" to commit rape with! THAT is the
> extent of the naysayer Cult's "logic"!
See below.
>
> I also know that anatase was NOT made anywhere NEAR where the map was
> reputedly made (including by naysayers).
A flat out lie, compounded with stupidity. Can one only buy a product
"near" where it is manufactured??
The so called "logic" also
> ignores other methods known to have existed that does produce anatase
> for ink making at the relevant time.
Not of the relevant crystal size, uniformity of shape, and without
aggregations or clumps.
Not to mention "pouncing" with a
> substance (kaolin) that is KNOWN to contain anatase of a uniform
> enough size as discovered on the map.
Not of the relevant crystal size, uniformity of shape, and without
aggregations or clumps.
When considering Seppo's post, one must realize that one is dealing with an
individual of this quality:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/sa/SAIRC/1997/50.html
Then one can understand why a lying rant of the sort produced by him.
>
> --
> SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
> misled.
And an unauthorized Philospher who doesn't read books is so stupid that he
doesn't even have to be mislead.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
I.E_Johansson
"Never anonymous Bud" <new...@katxyzkave.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:g834119i7ufiegsk1...@4ax.com...
> Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au>
scribed:
>
> >The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good
> >starting point.
>
>
> I'm not about to post it all here, but it IS more than
> sufficient to prove to any reasonable person that the map
> IS a forgery.
Then you are the one that missed the latest of the studies - that study you
refer to has been proven inconcequent and not valid. Btw I hope for your own
sake that you and the others who tries so hard to prove VM a forgery knows
that there are not only the 1120's map but also a 1500's map of interest for
the case. The 1500's map is almost identical for the parts of Western North
Atlantic.
Inger E
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> The truth is out there,
>
> but it's not interesting enough for most people.
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>> The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good
>> starting point.
>
>Nope. Simply wrong. The ink has been shown to be a product that could not
>have been produced in the 15th century.
Typical Marcus. Trying to contradict someone (in this case Seppo) by
citing something quite different.
No matter what or what has not been said about when the ink could or
could not have been made, Seppo's point was that it has not been
dated.
Remember the first sentence of the article which started this thread?:
"So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930.
Seppo first said that this is "Not possible." and now has said "The
ink hasn't been "dated" at all .... ".
I expect voluminous squink in an attempt at justification. :-(
Eric Stevens
Martyn Harrison
<inger_e....@telia.com> said:
>
>"Never anonymous Bud" <new...@katxyzkave.net> skrev i meddelandet
>news:g834119i7ufiegsk1...@4ax.com...
>> Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au>
>scribed:
>>
>> >The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good
>> >starting point.
>>
>> Apparently, you completely missed the latest info.
>>
>> I'm not about to post it all here, but it IS more than
>> sufficient to prove to any reasonable person that the map
>> IS a forgery.
>
>Then you are the one that missed the latest of the studies - that study you
>refer to has been proven inconcequent and not valid. Btw I hope for your own
>sake that you and the others who tries so hard to prove VM a forgery knows
>that there are not only the 1120's map but also a 1500's map of interest for
>the case. The 1500's map is almost identical for the parts of Western North
>Atlantic.
You should do your homework then before posting. Scholars in Wales have proven
the map to be a fake and will publish the much more latest studies in a report
but since they are Welsh you will all be unable to read it. Wait until their
report is done in September and you will know the truth. Until then I shall not
talk of it.
Steve Marcus
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:iru41152lhfoi81vo...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:49:13 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good
>>> starting point.
>>
>>Nope. Simply wrong. The ink has been shown to be a product that could
>>not
>>have been produced in the 15th century.
>
> Typical Marcus. Trying to contradict someone (in this case Seppo) by
> citing something quite different.
>
> No matter what or what has not been said about when the ink could or
> could not have been made, Seppo's point was that it has not been
> dated.
Typical Stevens. Taking a remark by someone out of the context of a whole
post and, and then generating squink.
>
> Remember the first sentence of the article which started this thread?:
>
> "So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930.
Yep, typical Stevens. Quoting something that, for anyone who understands
English, undercuts his own position. The opening gambit in a typical
Stevens squink attack.
Eric, read what you quoted slowly and carefully and then, if you can
concentrate long enough, read the entire post it was written in. The
statement you quoted **is** dating. Not to a specific year. But to a
specific date range (1930 forward). (As in "dinosaurs lived from year about
year X to about year Y and then became extinct", or "the artifact must have
been made earlier than year Z because thereafter the technique was
abandoned"). In archaeology, it is in fact unusual for a specific year to
be attached to an artifact, something that even a dolt like you should know.
For accuracy, the VM was dated to " about 1920 forward" insofar as the work
of McCrone is concerned; I suspect a typo of "3" substituted for a "2" was
committed by the OP; but it makes no difference. McCrone dated the VM to
about 1920 or later, **and his work on that issue has been confirmed**. In
deference to information posted by Doug McDonald, I personally prefer to
restate the conclusion arrived at by McCrone, as confirmed Brown and Clark,
to date the ink in this way: "not younger than the 18th century." This
still means that the VM is impossible for the 15th century or earlier. The
point is, we know that the ink must be of a date that makes the VM clearly a
fraud on the existing evidence. Seppo's attempt to argue otherwise was, as
usual, nonsense.
>
> Seppo first said that this is "Not possible." and now has said "The
> ink hasn't been "dated" at all .... ".
As noted, typical Stevens, beginning what promises to be a sideshow in which
he generates volumes squink of squink in an attempt to obscure the fact that
the VM is a hoax, while it has in fact been shown that on the existing
evidence, the VM is a hoax. Why do you waste your time? It would be better
spent on learning how to read your native tongue for comprehension.
>
> I expect voluminous squink in an attempt at justification. :-(
Of course you do, that's your reason for having written your post in the
first place. Seppo's point was that the date of "after 1930" is wrong,
meaning that it has not been ruled out that the VM could have been produced
circa 1440. If you read his post, Seppo used that statement as the opening
"fact" in a rant in which he claims that those who state that the VM is a
fake are wrong. But, as is almost always the case, it's Seppo who is wrong.
And you don't like the fact that he's wrong, because another one of your pet
beliefs (that the VM is authentic) has been shown to be wrong.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
news:iru41152lhfoi81vo...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:49:13 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is
>>> a good starting point.
>>
>>Nope. Simply wrong. The ink has been shown to be a product
>>that could not have been produced in the 15th century.
>
> Typical Marcus. Trying to contradict someone (in this case
> Seppo) by citing something quite different.
It is rather difficult not to contradict Seppo, since
so much of what he says is wantedly contrary.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
____Groups_____
Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/
____Sites_____
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Martyn Harrison
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> said:
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:49:13 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
><smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good
>>> starting point.
>>
>>Nope. Simply wrong. The ink has been shown to be a product that could not
>>have been produced in the 15th century.
>
>Typical Marcus. Trying to contradict someone (in this case Seppo) by
>citing something quite different.
>
>No matter what or what has not been said about when the ink could or
>could not have been made, Seppo's point was that it has not been
>dated.
..and this indicates the map is 15th century. Steve is saying it has been
dated, in a way that might be debated but not to the point that it may allow a
15th century ink to have been used.
The dating may be wrong, but its definitely happened.
David B
<6666119nnrmf9rmuq...@4ax.com>...
>
>Apparently on date Tue, 15 Feb 2005 16:25:21 GMT, "I.E_Johansson"
><inger_e....@telia.com> said:
>>
>>Then you are the one that missed the latest of the studies
>
proven
>the map to be a fake and will publish the much more latest studies in a
report
>but since they are Welsh you will all be unable to read it.
Esgusodwch fi !
Rydw i'n darllen Cymraeg (ā lluniau).
David B.
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:iru41152lhfoi81vo...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:49:13 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is
>>>> a good starting point.
>>>
>>>Nope. Simply wrong. The ink has been shown to be a product
>>>that could not have been produced in the 15th century.
>>
>> Typical Marcus. Trying to contradict someone (in this case
>> Seppo) by citing something quite different.
>
>It is rather difficult not to contradict Seppo, since
>so much of what he says is wantedly contrary.
I agree. The sad thing is that Seppo is capable of well informed
logical discussion but too often his arguments reach a point where
they become insane. However, in this matter, I think he is correct.
Nobody has yet provided a dating for the Vinland map. The best that
has been done is to say 'on the basis of such and such, it had to have
been made after so and so'.
The parchment has been radiocarbon dated but as has often been pointed
out there is nothing to suggest that the ink was not applied to the
parchment at some much later date. The ink itself has not been dated
other than by the inference that if the anatase particles are as
claimed by McCrone then the ink postdates 1920. That certainly
establishes a time period but not a date, with or without error bands.
Eric Stevens
Martyn Harrison
<tronos...@tesco.net> said:
I'd love to be able to say I had the faintest idea what all that means... ;)
Excuse me! I can read Welsh (of a sort).
?
David B.
Substitute (with pictures) in the brackets :-)
"Asterix ym Mhrydain" is about my level (and almost on topic too- how about
a thread on the accuracy of historical settings in the Asterix books?).
David B.
Steve Marcus
And again: stating that artifact X cannot have been produced later than
date Y *is* considered to be dating the artifact. If one is then discussing
whether the artifact, allegedly produced earlier than date Y, is authentic,
one had data that addresses the question of authenticity.
Your sole purpose in posting was to generate squink by raising the issue of
whether "establishing a time period" is, or is not, "dating" the artifact"
(note that Seppo's post stated: "The ink hasn't been "dated" at all,
contrary to the claim, is a good
starting point."; the quotes around the word dated are Seppo's, establishing
"a date" is something you introduced) so that you could steer the discussion
away from the fact that the anatase evidence certainly looks as though it
establishes that the VM is not authentic.
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Martyn Harrison
<dav...@tronospamchos.freeserve.co.uk> said:
>Martyn Harrison wrote in message ...
>>
>>Apparently on date Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:11:58 GMT, "David B"
>><tronos...@tesco.net> said:
>>>
>>>Esgusodwch fi !
>>>Rydw i'n darllen Cymraeg (â lluniau).
>>
>>I'd love to be able to say I had the faintest idea what all that means...
>;)
>>
>>Excuse me! I can read Welsh (of a sort).
>>
>>?
>
>Substitute (with pictures) in the brackets :-)
>
>"Asterix ym Mhrydain" is about my level (and almost on topic too- how about
>a thread on the accuracy of historical settings in the Asterix books?).
Well I suppose there's no doubt about the existence of, say, Gaul or Rome. And
Britain too.
I'm not so sure that Asterix actually conquered America, though. But now it's
mentioned, there's the pointy helmets, and longboats, and...
For instance, ISBN-8716004566 "Vitalstatistix Does Dallas" where it describes
how Obelisk introduced copper casting techniques to the indigenous people, and
Getafix planted all those lime trees for mixing up his mysterious potions.
Could it be history? I assumed the series of books were created for
entertainment purposes.
Philip Deitiker
news:Pg_Qd.42247$EG1.3459@lakeread04:
>
> "Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:oi7711tmcbttdur6m...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:53:47 GMT, Philip Deitiker
>> <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>>>news:iru41152lhfoi81vo...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:49:13 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim,
>>>>>> is a good starting point.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope. Simply wrong. The ink has been shown to be a product
>>>>>that could not have been produced in the 15th century.
>>>>
>>>> Typical Marcus. Trying to contradict someone (in this case
>>>> Seppo) by citing something quite different.
>>>
>>>It is rather difficult not to contradict Seppo, since
>>>so much of what he says is wantedly contrary.
>>
>> I agree. The sad thing is that Seppo is capable of well
>> informed logical discussion but too often his arguments reach a
>> point where they become insane. However, in this matter, I
>> think he is correct. Nobody has yet provided a dating for the
>> Vinland map. The best that has been done is to say 'on the
>> basis of such and such, it had to have been made after so and
>> so'.
From what I understand the most important aspect of any historical
document is it's providence. In archaeology materials at the site
that are dated and corroborate age provide this, but critical
questions are usually asked of any document that is supposedly in
public or private circulation since its writing. Consider the recent
forgeries in Isreal as an example. It is neccesary to provide
at least some documentation from the bearers of the document
of who wrote it, who it was transfered to, payment, how long
they owned it, was it passed through a family, are there other
documents from the same period, etc.
Why do you historians and curators have these rules?
Because attempts have been made in the past to forge documents or
try to represent a sow's ear as a silk purse.
>> The parchment has been radiocarbon dated but as has often been
>> pointed out there is nothing to suggest that the ink was not
>> applied to the parchment at some much later date. The ink
>> itself has not been dated other than by the inference that if
>> the anatase particles are as claimed by McCrone then the ink
>> postdates 1920. That certainly establishes a time period but
>> not a date, with or without error bands.
>
> And again: stating that artifact X cannot have been produced
> later than date Y *is* considered to be dating the artifact. If
> one is then discussing whether the artifact, allegedly produced
> earlier than date Y, is authentic, one had data that addresses
> the question of authenticity.
More importantly, presenting a document as fact, when the question of
its origin and providence looms heavily over it, is also
questionable. We are having this discussion because the crazy mdm
keeps throwing this document in as genuine. So we can heed Eric's
point for the moment, ignore Seppo because he is off-rocker. My
opinion is that a portion of the map was a forgery, but we don't
know exactly when. This is not to say the Norse could not have
added these map elements, but given the quality of maps in the 15th
and 16th century in that part of the world, what these elements
represent is in the air. So forgery or not, its value in the
discussion is somewhat meaningless.
The Meractor map, which was supposed to be from a later period
has almost as many inaccuracies in the region, and yet it was
supposed to be the best. The information on map details west of the
southern tip of greenland simply does not appear to have been
common knowledge to map makers before AD 1500.
From a philosophical point of view, I think that this discussion,
repeated here on numerous occasions is not of an acedemic nature
(scholarly if one choses a word). The key proponent of the map here
is using the map to make far more encompassing claims about new world
settlement than are on the map. We have seen in fact map elements
used to indicate Norse settlement to regions as far as Vancover.
This discussion is full of hyperbole and exaggeration. Irregardless
of whether one believes the Vinland map might have forged elements,
even considering the whole map as real does not substantially deviate
from archaeological and historical evidence suggesting some Norse
occupation of continental regions of the America if not for the blink
of an eye.
Irregardless of its authenticity it has become a point to launch
hyperbole and exaggeration, and neither require authenticity.
David Johnson
news:Pg_Qd.42247$EG1.3459@lakeread04:
> And again: stating that artifact X cannot have been produced later
> than date Y *is* considered to be dating the artifact. If one is then
> discussing whether the artifact, allegedly produced earlier than date
> Y, is authentic, one had data that addresses the question of
> authenticity.
>
> Your sole purpose in posting was to generate squink by raising the
> issue of whether "establishing a time period" is, or is not, "dating"
> the artifact" (note that Seppo's post stated: "The ink hasn't been
> "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good
> starting point."; the quotes around the word dated are Seppo's,
> establishing "a date" is something you introduced) so that you could
> steer the discussion away from the fact that the anatase evidence
> certainly looks as though it establishes that the VM is not authentic.
If he really _insists_ on a "date" for the ink, then I suppose "1960 +-40
years" will work just fine...
David
--
David Johnson http://home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too
Remove "_nospam" to email
I.E_Johansson
"David Johnson" <trolleyf...@earthlink.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns960080255B...@130.133.1.4...
> "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote in
> news:Pg_Qd.42247$EG1.3459@lakeread04:
>
> > And again: stating that artifact X cannot have been produced later
> > than date Y *is* considered to be dating the artifact. If one is then
> > discussing whether the artifact, allegedly produced earlier than date
> > Y, is authentic, one had data that addresses the question of
> > authenticity.
> >
> > Your sole purpose in posting was to generate squink by raising the
> > issue of whether "establishing a time period" is, or is not, "dating"
> > the artifact" (note that Seppo's post stated: "The ink hasn't been
> > "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good
> > starting point."; the quotes around the word dated are Seppo's,
> > establishing "a date" is something you introduced) so that you could
> > steer the discussion away from the fact that the anatase evidence
> > certainly looks as though it establishes that the VM is not authentic.
>
> If he really _insists_ on a "date" for the ink, then I suppose "1960 +-40
> years" will work just fine...
>
> David
Don't pot to much money in on that one. You will lose.
Inger E
Tom McDonald
Johansson,
So you aren't waiting for the Danes after all, but instead have
made up your mind without their report. Not very scholarly.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
David B.
>
>If he really _insists_ on a "date" for the ink, then I suppose "1960 +-40
>years" will work just fine...
Before Seppo gets in- no that's a really silly date. The date range is from
c1920, when anatase made by the 1916 process started to be used in
pigments, and 1957, when the Vinland Map was offered for sale. Not a long
date range, by historical standards!
David B.
David B.
>
>Apparently on date Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:57:39 -0000, "David B."
><dav...@tronospamchos.freeserve.co.uk> said:
>>
>>how about
>>a thread on the accuracy of historical settings in the Asterix books?
>
And
>Britain too.
>
>I'm not so sure that Asterix actually conquered America, though. But now
it's
>mentioned, there's the pointy helmets, and longboats, and...
>
>For instance, ISBN-8716004566 "Vitalstatistix Does Dallas" where it
describes
>how Obelisk introduced copper casting techniques to the indigenous people,
and
>Getafix planted all those lime trees for mixing up his mysterious potions.
I was thinking more of "Asterix og Vikingene" and "Asterix & the Great
Crossing" (sorry, don't know what that one's called in Scandinavia, and
I'll leave you to guess what body of water the Gauls cross)
>Could it be history? I assumed the series of books were created for
>entertainment purposes.
The explanation for the ubiquitousness of menhirs in north-west France
always struck me as pretty plausible. And check out the depictions of
Olympia in "Asterix aux Jeux Olympiques".
David B.
Steve Marcus
"Philip Deitiker" <Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fR0Rd.48245$Th1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
True to a certain extent. Using the VM as an example, it is claimed that
the inability of/refusal to provide any provenance for the map as it was
originally presented for sale should have been a warning sign to potential
purchasers that the map may not have been what it was claimed to be.
However, a map lacking provenance may prove out as authentic, whereas a
"15th century" map drawn on parchment dated only to the 17th century clearly
cannot prove out as authentic.
> In archaeology materials at the site
> that are dated and corroborate age provide this, but critical
> questions are usually asked of any document that is supposedly in
> public or private circulation since its writing. Consider the recent
> forgeries in Isreal as an example. It is neccesary to provide
> at least some documentation from the bearers of the document
> of who wrote it, who it was transfered to, payment, how long
> they owned it, was it passed through a family, are there other
> documents from the same period, etc.
I would quibble with the word "necessry", saying instead that the the
failure to provide provenance should alert the interested purchaser to an
increased possibility that the document *may not* be authentic. Nota bene
the qualifier "may not."
> Why do you historians and curators have these rules?
> Because attempts have been made in the past to forge documents or
> try to represent a sow's ear as a silk purse.
>
>>> The parchment has been radiocarbon dated but as has often been
>>> pointed out there is nothing to suggest that the ink was not
>>> applied to the parchment at some much later date. The ink
>>> itself has not been dated other than by the inference that if
>>> the anatase particles are as claimed by McCrone then the ink
>>> postdates 1920. That certainly establishes a time period but
>>> not a date, with or without error bands.
>>
>> And again: stating that artifact X cannot have been produced
>> later than date Y *is* considered to be dating the artifact. If
>> one is then discussing whether the artifact, allegedly produced
>> earlier than date Y, is authentic, one had data that addresses
>> the question of authenticity.
>
> More importantly, presenting a document as fact, when the question of
> its origin and providence looms heavily over it, is also
> questionable.
Agreed, but that wasn't the burden of Seppo's original post, or my reply
thereto, or Eric's reply to my reply.
> We are having this discussion because the crazy mdm
> keeps throwing this document in as genuine.
No. At least I'm not. I'm participating in this branch of the thread
because of Seppo's obviously erroneous post, and Eric's equally obvious
attempt to cloud the issue regarding the meaning of the anatase crystals
that are present, solely in the yellow lines, on the VM.
> So we can heed Eric's
> point for the moment,
I think not, since Eric's point was that saying that the ink hasn't been
dated is an absurd statement. It certainly has been dated in the sense that
many archaeological/anthropological artifacts have been dated.(See * below)
Specifically, it was dated to a range: not older than the 20th century. As
per info provided by Doug McDonald, I'll generously claim the range to be
not older than the 17th century.
When an artifact is carbon dated, it isn't dated to a specific year. It is
dated to a range of dates. Likewise with respect to dendrochronology. Even
using geological data to date an artifact such as a fossil, the date isn't
to a specific year, but to a range.
> ignore Seppo because he is off-rocker.
You know that, I know that, and most of the posters on sci.arch know that.
But some may not, and if I don't recognize a "handle", I'll never lose the
chance to inform that poster about Seppo.
> My
> opinion is that a portion of the map was a forgery, but we don't
> know exactly when. This is not to say the Norse could not have
> added these map elements, but given the quality of maps in the 15th
> and 16th century in that part of the world, what these elements
> represent is in the air. So forgery or not, its value in the
> discussion is somewhat meaningless.
I don't follow you. The map has lines on it. Those lines could not have
been inked in the 15th century as they are in fact inked, yet the VM was
purported to be from the 15th century. That's the sole value of this
discussion.
> The Meractor map, which was supposed to be from a later period
> has almost as many inaccuracies in the region, and yet it was
> supposed to be the best. The information on map details west of the
> southern tip of greenland simply does not appear to have been
> common knowledge to map makers before AD 1500.
>
> From a philosophical point of view, I think that this discussion,
> repeated here on numerous occasions is not of an acedemic nature
> (scholarly if one choses a word). The key proponent of the map here
> is using the map to make far more encompassing claims about new world
> settlement than are on the map. We have seen in fact map elements
> used to indicate Norse settlement to regions as far as Vancover.
> This discussion is full of hyperbole and exaggeration. Irregardless
> of whether one believes the Vinland map might have forged elements,
> even considering the whole map as real does not substantially deviate
> from archaeological and historical evidence suggesting some Norse
> occupation of continental regions of the America if not for the blink
> of an eye.
Insofar as a discussion of whether the map owned by Yale University, which
goes by the name of the Vinland Map, is in fact a 15th century artifact, the
discussion is certainly scholarly (or, if you will, of an academic nature)
.
> Irregardless of its authenticity it has become a point to launch
> hyperbole and exaggeration, and neither require authenticity.
True. Too true.
>
>
>
> --
> Philip
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> ____Groups_____
> Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
> Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
> Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
> Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/
>
> ____Sites_____
> Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
> Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Steve
David Johnson
news:cv37i1$31q$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
Oh, I agree - tis very silly. But Eric apparently is upset the ink isn't
"dated" in a more classical archaeological sense, so I "gave" it a date
that more resembles what you'd find, say, from someone doing a
radiocarbon dating or such.*
Eric keeps clutching at straws - so I thought I should throw him a hay-
bale or two...
David
* In retrospect, I should have used "1937 +-20 years" or something
similar, but I couldn't remember the sale date off the top of my head and
was too lazy to look it up.
Philip Deitiker
news:eDbRd.42428$EG1.10616@lakeread04:
> Using the VM as an example, it is claimed that
> the inability of/refusal to provide any provenance for the
map as it was
> originally presented for sale should have been a warning
sign to potential
> purchasers that the map may not have been what it was
claimed to be.
>
Since the context prior to initial sale is dubious, so should
its authenticity, always.
> However, a map lacking provenance may prove out as
authentic, whereas a
> "15th century" map drawn on parchment dated only to the 17th
century clearly
> cannot prove out as authentic.
I don't know that the parchment is 17th century. It doesn't
seem to me conclusive. Troubling with this document is the
nature of the Ink and differences in the inks used in the
document.
> I would quibble with the word "necessry", saying instead
that the the
> failure to provide provenance should alert the interested
purchaser to an
> increased possibility that the document *may not* be
authentic. Nota bene
> the qualifier "may not."
Right, may not, but you are not a buyer, you are looking at
this from a scientific point of view, should it be added to
the knowledge database or rejected.
> Agreed, but that wasn't the burden of Seppo's original post,
or my reply
> thereto, or Eric's reply to my reply.
It doesn't matter what the burden of Seppo's post was, the
reality is that there are independent factors that create
reasoning for not entertaining this map as of scientific
value.
> No. At least I'm not. I'm participating in this branch of
the thread
> because of Seppo's obviously erroneous post, and Eric's
equally obvious
> attempt to cloud the issue regarding the meaning of the
anatase crystals
> that are present, solely in the yellow lines, on the VM.
I don't think this time he is clouding it, and in any case I
am unclouding the issue by arguing that the map lacks proper
historical documentation to take seriously. In any case there
are scenarios in which it was forged, and that is a great
matter for a historical group to discuss, but this is
archaeology and the map pertains to settlement, and in this
regard it becomes a bit impertinent.
>> So we can heed Eric's
>> point for the moment,
>
> I think not, since Eric's point was that saying that the ink
hasn't been
> dated is an absurd statement. It certainly has been dated
in the sense that
> many archaeological/anthropological artifacts have been
dated.(See * below)
> Specifically, it was dated to a range: not older than the
20th century. As
> per info provided by Doug McDonald, I'll generously claim
the range to be
> not older than the 17th century.
I don't disagree with that but the papers I read did not set
an exact date, and the speculation of when the anastase was of
quality to result in the ink granules could be confidenced in
a wider range if the history of anastase is incomplete. But
then again the confidence in that history coincides with when
the providence for the artifact begins, and there in lies the
biggest factor of all.
> When an artifact is carbon dated, it isn't dated to a
specific year. It is
> dated to a range of dates. Likewise with respect to
dendrochronology. Even
> using geological data to date an artifact such as a fossil,
the date isn't
> to a specific year, but to a range.
That really depends on how much purified carbon of the datable
material is extracted, for recent dating carbon dating can be
very accurate. Within the range of historical precision;
however when one is talking about dating Ink, that level of
dating is dependent on the quantity of ink that can be
extracted, and how much carbon there is, and what is the age
of the natural source of that carbon.
> You know that, I know that, and most of the posters on
sci.arch know that.
Within about 6 posts any person of intelligence should
recognize that.
> I don't follow you. The map has lines on it. Those lines
could not have
> been inked in the 15th century as they are in fact inked,
yet the VM was
> purported to be from the 15th century. That's the sole
value of this
> discussion.
In terms of magnitude, if the estimated age of the ink is off
from the reported age of the document then yes, but if the
estimated age of the ink is close to the reported age or even
75% of the age then one as issues regarding the historical
record and the accuracy of the onset of some technology, many
of which I don't trust, and history weighs in frequently in
establishing earlier dates. Providence then becomes an issue,
particularly with this document and because its warning
temporaly corroborates the onset of technology issue.
Case closed until something can provide better providence
> Insofar as a discussion of whether the map owned by Yale
University, which
> goes by the name of the Vinland Map, is in fact a 15th
century artifact, the
> discussion is certainly scholarly (or, if you will, of an
academic nature)
But not archaeology if it is a forgery, it only becomes of
archaeological value if it can somehow be tied to some
reference archaeological material. It may be a matter for some
scientific discussion of how to detect forgeries, but this is
not the aim of the group. The aim of this group is that once
something is established as genuine and in that establishment
becomes a historical document which then corroborates,
contradicts some archaeological based conclusion. It cannot
very well do either as its historical value remains dubious on
two accounts. It may be true that archaeological methods may
be used to determine whether it is a forgery, but consider
that forensic methods and archaeological methods also overlap,
and yet we are not doing police work here.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Sci. Arch. Aux
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
--- snip ---
>stating that artifact X cannot have been produced later than
>date Y *is* considered to be dating the artifact.
Sez who?
---- snip ----
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote in response to Philip Deitiker:
--- snip ---
>> More importantly, presenting a document as fact, when the question of
>> its origin and providence looms heavily over it, is also
>> questionable.
>
>Agreed, but that wasn't the burden of Seppo's original post, or my reply
>thereto, or Eric's reply to my reply.
>
>> We are having this discussion because the crazy mdm
>> keeps throwing this document in as genuine.
>
>No. At least I'm not. I'm participating in this branch of the thread
>because of Seppo's obviously erroneous post, ...
Not obviously erroneous at all. See below.
> ... and Eric's equally obvious
>attempt to cloud the issue regarding the meaning of the anatase crystals
>that are present, solely in the yellow lines, on the VM.
>
>> So we can heed Eric's
>> point for the moment,
>
>I think not, since Eric's point was that saying that the ink hasn't been
>dated is an absurd statement. It certainly has been dated in the sense that
>many archaeological/anthropological artifacts have been dated.(See * below)
>Specifically, it was dated to a range: not older than the 20th century. As
>per info provided by Doug McDonald, I'll generously claim the range to be
>not older than the 17th century.
>
>When an artifact is carbon dated, it isn't dated to a specific year. It is
>dated to a range of dates.
I don't know whether the problem is that don't fully understand the
process or that you are misrepresenting it.
Radicarbon dating yields an exact date in the same sense that the
speedometer in your car yields an exact speed. However, in both cases
their are uncertainties. In the case of the speedometer, there is the
question of how accurately you can read the speedometer, the effect of
tire wear, inflation pressure, wheel slip etc. So although you may
read off 72 mph you have to accept that means that the speed is most
probably 72 mph +/- 2.5% (at +/- one SD error range). That won't stop
you saying 72 mph.
The same thing applies with radiocarbon dating. The process will yield
a specific radiocarbon age but once again the process is subject to
measurement errors and uncertainties. These will be greater than the
2.5% cited in the case of the speedometer and may even be (say) +7.2%
and -11.4%. These are not hard and fast limits but relate only to the
probability of error. If you demand a higher degree of confidence in
the measurement the error bands will increase.
>Likewise with respect to dendrochronology. Even
>using geological data to date an artifact such as a fossil, the date isn't
>to a specific year, but to a range.
Once again only because of the uncertainties associated with the
original data.
In the case of the VM the anatase suggests that it was made sometime
after about 1920 when this type of anatase went into production and
before about 1930 when it was gradually succeeded by another product.
This gives a band of opportunity of 10 years but gives absolutely no
indication of when abouts in that band of ten years the map was
created. Using this kind of logic cannot give you a specific dating
(with confidence limits) such as can be obtained from radiocarbon
dating. There is the further complication that not every ink maker
started using anatase simultaneously, Nor did they all give it up
simultaneously. For this reason the ten year period has fuzzy ends
rather than hard cutoff dates.
>
--- snip ----
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
I don't think that anyone argues that the lack of provenance is not a
serious problem for the VM.
>
>>> The parchment has been radiocarbon dated but as has often been
>>> pointed out there is nothing to suggest that the ink was not
>>> applied to the parchment at some much later date. The ink
>>> itself has not been dated other than by the inference that if
>>> the anatase particles are as claimed by McCrone then the ink
>>> postdates 1920. That certainly establishes a time period but
>>> not a date, with or without error bands.
>>
>> And again: stating that artifact X cannot have been produced
>> later than date Y *is* considered to be dating the artifact. If
>> one is then discussing whether the artifact, allegedly produced
>> earlier than date Y, is authentic, one had data that addresses
>> the question of authenticity.
>
>More importantly, presenting a document as fact, when the question of
>its origin and providence looms heavily over it, is also
>questionable. We are having this discussion because the crazy mdm
>keeps throwing this document in as genuine. So we can heed Eric's
>point for the moment, ignore Seppo because he is off-rocker. My
>opinion is that a portion of the map was a forgery, but we don't
>know exactly when.
Post 1920 if the presence of modern anatase is accepted.
>This is not to say the Norse could not have
>added these map elements, but given the quality of maps in the 15th
>and 16th century in that part of the world, what these elements
>represent is in the air. So forgery or not, its value in the
>discussion is somewhat meaningless.
> The Meractor map, which was supposed to be from a later period
>has almost as many inaccuracies in the region, and yet it was
>supposed to be the best. The information on map details west of the
>southern tip of greenland simply does not appear to have been
>common knowledge to map makers before AD 1500.
>
> From a philosophical point of view, I think that this discussion,
>repeated here on numerous occasions is not of an acedemic nature
>(scholarly if one choses a word). The key proponent of the map here
>is using the map to make far more encompassing claims about new world
>settlement than are on the map. We have seen in fact map elements
>used to indicate Norse settlement to regions as far as Vancover.
>This discussion is full of hyperbole and exaggeration. Irregardless
>of whether one believes the Vinland map might have forged elements,
>even considering the whole map as real does not substantially deviate
>from archaeological and historical evidence suggesting some Norse
>occupation of continental regions of the America if not for the blink
>of an eye.
> Irregardless of its authenticity it has become a point to launch
>hyperbole and exaggeration, and neither require authenticity.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<trolleyf...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"David B." <dav...@tronospamchos.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>news:cv37i1$31q$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
>
>> David Johnson wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>If he really _insists_ on a "date" for the ink, then I suppose "1960
>>>+-40 years" will work just fine...
>>
>> Before Seppo gets in- no that's a really silly date. The date range is
>> from c1920, when anatase made by the 1916 process started to be used
>> in pigments, and 1957, when the Vinland Map was offered for sale. Not
>> a long date range, by historical standards!
>
>Oh, I agree - tis very silly. But Eric apparently is upset the ink isn't
>"dated" in a more classical archaeological sense, so I "gave" it a date
>that more resembles what you'd find, say, from someone doing a
>radiocarbon dating or such.*
>
>Eric keeps clutching at straws - so I thought I should throw him a hay-
>bale or two...
I was pointing out that Seppo was correct in what he said. The ink has
not been dated.
I wasn't arguing either for or against the authenticity of the VM.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>I don't know that the parchment is 17th century.
I understand that it is generally accepted that the parchment comes
from this period.
That was the point made by Seppo.
> ... and the speculation of when the anastase was of
>quality to result in the ink granules could be confidenced in
>a wider range if the history of anastase is incomplete. But
>then again the confidence in that history coincides with when
>the providence for the artifact begins, and there in lies the
>biggest factor of all.
--- snip ---
Eric Stevens
Tedd Jacobs
"Eric Stevens" wrote...
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:23:45 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> --- snip ---
>>stating that artifact X cannot have been produced later than
>>date Y *is* considered to be dating the artifact.
>
> Sez who?
it's called a typology eric. or were you baiting?
Martyn Harrison
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> said:
>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:35:10 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
><smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote in response to Philip Deitiker:
>
>In the case of the VM the anatase suggests that it was made sometime
>after about 1920 when this type of anatase went into production and
>before about 1930 when it was gradually succeeded by another product.
>This gives a band of opportunity of 10 years but gives absolutely no
>indication of when abouts in that band of ten years the map was
>created.
Not so. The ink has properties we recognise in a sort of ink that was
commercially available at about that date. Obviously the only requirement is
that the material components be older than the forgery.
That would date the forgery to 1920 up until it's history is reasonable secure,
(I'm guessing it's been safely looked after since about 1950.)
The point about a forgery is it will probably contain anachronistic components,
e.g. a Vinland map made with a laser printer won't fool anyone. The paper used
in the VM might have been in "commercial" use from 1420 to 1430, for instance,
but it doesn't mean the map must have been produced in a "band of opportunity"
of 10 years. Although, if you assume it to be genuine, that would be your
conclusion as to the date of it. You'd be swimming against the tide though
particularly as the same "assuming it is genuine" date is 1920 to 1930 if you
take the ink on face value.
I mean, maybe the parchment is a bit older than usual, and the ink a bit
earlier...
Steve Marcus
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.Spam> wrote in message
news:Xns9600D9...@128.249.2.19...
> In sci.archaeology, Steve Marcus created a message ID
> news:eDbRd.42428$EG1.10616@lakeread04:
>
>> Using the VM as an example, it is claimed that
>> the inability of/refusal to provide any provenance for the
> map as it was
>> originally presented for sale should have been a warning
> sign to potential
>> purchasers that the map may not have been what it was
> claimed to be.
>>
>
> Since the context prior to initial sale is dubious, so should
> its authenticity, always.
>
>> However, a map lacking provenance may prove out as
> authentic, whereas a
>> "15th century" map drawn on parchment dated only to the 17th
> century clearly
>> cannot prove out as authentic.
>
> I don't know that the parchment is 17th century.
Nor do I state that it was; in fact the parchment has been dated to the 15th
century.
My point was that while provenance is certainly an important consideration
in the evaluation of an artifact, it is hardly a conclusive matter. An
artifact presented for sale (or for scholarly consideration) without any
information (or with a great deal of reluctance to provide information)
vis-a-vis its provenance comes with a built-in flashing light that screams
"warning, warning." However, it's entirely possible for such an artifact to
prove to be genuine, whereas artifacts allegedly well provenanced can
certainly prove out to be fakes.
> It doesn't
> seem to me conclusive. Troubling with this document is the
> nature of the Ink and differences in the inks used in the
> document.
Correct.
>
>> I would quibble with the word "necessry", saying instead
> that the the
>> failure to provide provenance should alert the interested
> purchaser to an
>> increased possibility that the document *may not* be
> authentic. Nota bene
>> the qualifier "may not."
>
> Right, may not, but you are not a buyer, you are looking at
> this from a scientific point of view, should it be added to
> the knowledge database or rejected.
Which is why I did not raise the issue of provenance (permit me to remind
you that you did). The recent NOVA program on the VM made provenance an
issue, and properly so if my comments above are understood, but then again,
NOVA's purpose is to attract viewers and provide some entertainment value.
Starting the program off with mention of the lack of provenance for the VM,
and reminding viewers of that lack throughout the program, certainly
provided a "hook" that would keep folks not readily conversant with either
the VM or the science of archaeology discussed on the program from changing
the channel.
>
>> Agreed, but that wasn't the burden of Seppo's original post,
> or my reply
>> thereto, or Eric's reply to my reply.
>
> It doesn't matter what the burden of Seppo's post was, the
> reality is that there are independent factors that create
> reasoning for not entertaining this map as of scientific
> value.
And the strongest is the ink, which was the first argument presented by
Seppo. Show that Seppo's claim on that matter is bogus, and you blow the
entire post out of the water *and* cast serious doubt on Seppo's credibility
in general. These objectives were, after all, a large part of my purpose in
bothering to reply to Seppo's post.
>
>> No. At least I'm not. I'm participating in this branch of
> the thread
>> because of Seppo's obviously erroneous post, and Eric's
> equally obvious
>> attempt to cloud the issue regarding the meaning of the
> anatase crystals
>> that are present, solely in the yellow lines, on the VM.
>
> I don't think this time he is clouding it, and in any case I
> am unclouding the issue by arguing that the map lacks proper
> historical documentation to take seriously.
Eric most certainly is trying to cloud the issue raised by the ink on the
map. Moreover, you are most certainly not "unclouding" or addressing the
topic of the ink my raising the entirely different (even if very germane)
issue of historical documentation. You see, Eric's post re "dating" the ink
is, as a matter of the science involved with the Vinland Map, wholly an
attempt to divert attention from the fact that the best scientific evidence
obtained to date clearly and definitively show the VM to be a fake, and Eric
can't stand that.
> In any case there
> are scenarios in which it was forged, and that is a great
> matter for a historical group to discuss, but this is
> archaeology and the map pertains to settlement, and in this
> regard it becomes a bit impertinent.
I disagree. The concept of how science approaches an artifact is certainly
relevant to an archaeology group.
>
>>> So we can heed Eric's
>>> point for the moment,
>>
>> I think not, since Eric's point was that saying that the ink
> hasn't been
>> dated is an absurd statement. It certainly has been dated
> in the sense that
>> many archaeological/anthropological artifacts have been
> dated.(See * below)
>> Specifically, it was dated to a range: not older than the
> 20th century. As
>> per info provided by Doug McDonald, I'll generously claim
> the range to be
>> not older than the 17th century.
>
> I don't disagree with that but the papers I read did not set
> an exact date, and the speculation of when the anastase was of
> quality to result in the ink granules could be confidenced in
> a wider range if the history of anastase is incomplete.
When, in archaeology, is an exact date ever set?? Surely not in C14 dating,
or in dendrochronolgy. If you date a fossil, or an arrow head, by
considering the strata in which it was found, do you arrive at a conclusion
that the fossil dates to 8,123,456 BCE, or the arrow head dates to 1685.
Dating is quite often a range of dates. In the case of the VM, as others
have pointed out, the date can be expressed as the range about 1920-1957
(the date that it was presented for sale to Witten). Some have pointed out
that the technology to produce anatase of having the characteristics of the
anatase found on the VM existed earlier than 1920; if IIRC, the allegation
was 17th century. So a conservative date would be circa 1600-1957, a range
that is hardly "huge" by archaeological or anthropological standards, and
still excludes the possibility that the VM is a genuine 15th century
artifact.
> But
> then again the confidence in that history coincides with when
> the providence for the artifact begins, and there in lies the
> biggest factor of all.
I can't agree with "biggest factor of all", as discussed above. And on that
point, we will simply have to agree to disagree.
>
>
>> When an artifact is carbon dated, it isn't dated to a
> specific year. It is
>> dated to a range of dates. Likewise with respect to
> dendrochronology. Even
>> using geological data to date an artifact such as a fossil,
> the date isn't
>> to a specific year, but to a range.
>
> That really depends on how much purified carbon of the datable
> material is extracted, for recent dating carbon dating can be
> very accurate.
Yet the dating is almost never expressed as a single year. And as one
travels back in time, less and less specific to a given year.
> Within the range of historical precision;
> however when one is talking about dating Ink, that level of
> dating is dependent on the quantity of ink that can be
> extracted, and how much carbon there is, and what is the age
> of the natural source of that carbon.
Or, in the case of the VM, on the existence of anatase of a given crystal
size, regularity of shape, and non-clumped nature.
>
>> You know that, I know that, and most of the posters on
> sci.arch know that.
>
> Within about 6 posts any person of intelligence should
> recognize that.
Don't assume that everyone who read Seppo's post would have read any other
post on sci.arch, or ever read any other post on sci.arch, or ever read
anything at all about the VM.
And that aside, why should anyone on sci.arch tolerate nonsensical posts
such as Seppo's??
I disagree with many aspects of your final two paragraphs, but it simply
isn't worth the time of either of us to continue discussing them. I simply
agree to disagree with them.
>
> --
> Philip
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
> Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
> Evol. of Xchrom.
> http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
> Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
> Sci. Arch. Aux
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
>
> DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
Steve
Steve Marcus
But since setting an exact date is something that quite often isn't done
when dating an artifact (dating is often given as a range of dates), and is
wholly irrelevant to the present scientific evidence quite clearly
demonstrating that the VM is a fake, what precisely was the value or purpose
of Seppo's point other than to mislead?? For that matter, what was the
value or purpose of your defense of Seppo's point, other than to mislead??
>
>
> --- snip ---
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve
Steve Marcus
As predicted, a massive cloud of squink by Eric. And as is typical, the
squink actually supports the other guy's (my) position.
The point that there are "uncertainties associated with the original date"
is irrelevant. The point that is relevant is that dates are quite often
given as ranges, not as single years. If a given arrow head is dated by
analyzing the geological context in which it is found as dating to 1732 +
or - 20 years, and if a second arrow head from a different area, again by
geological context, to date to 1820 + or - 20 years, we can conclusively
state that the first arrow head is older than the second arrow head. The
fact that there was an amount of uncertainty when working with geological
strata in both instances is irrelevant. Each arrow head has been dated, and
conclusions can be reached from the dates obtained.
>
> In the case of the VM the anatase suggests that it was made sometime
> after about 1920 when this type of anatase went into production and
> before about 1930 when it was gradually succeeded by another product.
> This gives a band of opportunity of 10 years but gives absolutely no
> indication of when abouts in that band of ten years the map was
> created. Using this kind of logic cannot give you a specific dating
> (with confidence limits) such as can be obtained from radiocarbon
> dating. There is the further complication that not every ink maker
> started using anatase simultaneously, Nor did they all give it up
> simultaneously. For this reason the ten year period has fuzzy ends
> rather than hard cutoff dates.
I'm not going to get into a discussion of your logic, which as so often
happens, is totally wrong (for instance, if even if anatase of the type
produced around 1920 was *instantly* taken off the market in 1930 and
replaced by another product, one cannot conclude that it wasn't available in
1950, whether through the purchase of someone's stock of it or via special
order; or have you never heard of buying a bottle of wine dated 1920 in
1970, even though the product wasn't produced after 1920??)
Your analysis is totally irrelevant to the matter of the VM being a fake,
Seppo's original comment re dating was outlandishly wrong and designed to
mislead. Your support of Seppo's original comment is also outlandishly
wrong, and is also designed to mislead. Even your own analysis re the "ten
year period" that you discuss above were completely logical and accurate,
the date established thereby (about 1920 -> 1930 + X years) still shows that
the VM is not a 15th century artifact. Which is a fact that Seppo was
arguing against, and a fact that you hate accepting.
>>
>
> --- snip ----
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Seppo Renfors
Never anonymous Bud wrote:
>
> Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> scribed:
>
> >The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good
> >starting point.
>
> Apparently, you completely missed the latest info.
"Latest info"??? - So the WM has been destruction tested, has it? I'm
aware that they have refused to do so in the past - are you now
claiming they changed their mind?
>
> I'm not about to post it all here, but it IS more than
> sufficient to prove to any reasonable person that the map
> IS a forgery.
Aha..... all I see is merely a statement of raw faith - not fact.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
SO you run the argument that ALL men are guilty of rape because they
have the TOOLS to commit rape with. Perhaps if you were to go back to
my post and address EACH and every point I brought up about the
anatase - and back your statements up with evidence - then we might be
able to move on and look at other problems you selectively choose to
IGNORE.
Of course, noting the response above, it will never happen. You have
ALREADY specifically and pointedly excluded even the remotest
possibility of it actually being genuine. In other words - you hold a
prejudiced positions.
Let me remind you of this "Thomas Cahill of the University of
California, Davis, together with 6 colleagues ..... determined that
although titanium is indeed often present in the ink, it is to be
found only in minute quantities, far less than McCrone had reported."
You have yourself used a discredited "study" (much plagiarised from
McCrone) Brown & Clark to poo-poo a more rigorous and proficiently
carried out study by Cahill AND 6 others, using better equipment. One
that reports not ONLY material supporting a predetermined outcome as
Brown and Clark has done.
The point being that it requires a LOT of anatase in order to support
the claim of "fake" - therefor do whatever it takes to kill off the
Cahill study, right. Only Cahill et al. state "titanium is indeed
often present in the ink" - that is to say, NOT ALWAYS PRESENT, which
contradicts a predetermined, required outcome of "fake". Again the
anatase must be UNIFORMLY spread through out the ink IF "commercially
manufactured" is claimed.
This was not possible for Brown & CLark's study to determine. They
picked some 9 points of interest - only reported on 6 IIRC in a very
general manner and don't discuss each test area individually - in fact
don't even identify the test with the relevant area ever. The say
"Analysis of the black ink on six areas of the map and its legends
gave rise in each case to a poorly defined but nevertheless
characteristic" note the specific words: "of the black ink" - later
they say, "Anatase was shown .... to be present in the yellow lines in
five areas" Already 1 area is no longer being reported on but the
implication is "no anatase was present" on the 6th area. So now there
is 5 of 9 being referred to - or about half only and reducing...
Also the anatase has now moved to the YELLOW area, not the "black ink"
any more! BUT they do go on to say this: "traces also being found in
places where the black ink coincides with the yellow lines" - Note the
word: "traces" an unquantified amount but indicates "very small
amount" eg as per Cahill! NOTE: "where the black ink coincides with
the yellow lines" - that is to say NOT IN THE BLACK INK but where the
two meet in the JOIN. It is also POOR FORM to not quantify it
properly. It is also poor form to combine the test sites discussions
like they did to become one - giving the impression of "uniformity"
despite them NOT presenting anything to uphold that implied claim. In
fact one has to say that this so called "study" does tend to eliminate
a commercially manufactured pigment using anatase because it isn't
found in the pigment, "black ink"!
They conveniently omitted to note their own graph that shows traces of
Ilmenite (Ref. Olin) and in fact deny having found Ilmenite, despite
the peak visible even in this small pix:
http://webexhibits.org/vinland/images/RClark-figs/Picture-5.jpg
It is quite obvious they have set out to prove "it is a fake" and had
that outcome in mind already before starting the study. They have
clearly taken their best evidence to that end and shown test result
graphs of ONE site out of NINE - leaving a big question over the other
8 sites tested. This is a CRAP study unworthy of that title.
But then, this isn't addressing the points I had mentioned earlier re
the anatase. That's up to you to do!
Seppo Renfors
Philip Deitiker wrote:
>
[..]
>
> From what I understand the most important aspect of any historical
> document is it's providence. In archaeology materials at the site
> that are dated and corroborate age provide this, but critical
> questions are usually asked of any document that is supposedly in
> public or private circulation since its writing. Consider the recent
> forgeries in Isreal as an example.
Anything in Israel is totally irrelevant.
> It is neccesary to provide
> at least some documentation from the bearers of the document
> of who wrote it, who it was transfered to, payment, how long
> they owned it, was it passed through a family, are there other
> documents from the same period, etc.
> Why do you historians and curators have these rules?
> Because attempts have been made in the past to forge documents or
> try to represent a sow's ear as a silk purse.
We know very well that it doesn't matter - FACTS isn't what this is
about, but the collective protection of status quo (by some) - of the
establishment dogma, as the bottle washer should know, being one of
the "enforcers"! If the author had dated and signed the document it
would STILL be claimed as a fake. We have already seen this occur in
relation to other artefact that don't fit the establishment dogma.
[..]
>
> More importantly, presenting a document as fact, when the question of
> its origin and providence looms heavily over it, is also
> questionable.
....and again we see waffle, nothing but amateur theatrics. An emotive
construct of words to generate suspicion not based on sound logic,
fact or argument.
> We are having this discussion because the crazy mdm
> keeps throwing this document in as genuine. So we can heed Eric's
> point for the moment, ignore Seppo because he is off-rocker.
....and THAT bilious personal attack from the bottle washer is what
the "academics" are calling "proof" and "scientific evidence" in
Yankee land? Hell it isn't even what Eric said! That just demonstrates
the rigour and "honesty" (practically nil) certain "projectionists"
engage in, in their claims.
> My opinion is that a portion of the map was a forgery, ...[..]
....and this is where the bottle washer shows, WHY it isn't a
scientists boot lace! The "opinion" is tantamount to "fact" in its own
little fantasy world.
[snip a whole lot of meaningless (to the issue) waffle]
David B
>
>You have yourself used a discredited "study" (much plagiarised from
>McCrone) Brown & Clark to poo-poo a more rigorous and proficiently
>carried out study by Cahill AND 6 others, using better equipment.
You haven't actually quite understood the Brown and Clark study, Seppo.
David B.
David B
<0fqa115lk1v41cara...@4ax.com>...
>
>In the case of the VM the anatase suggests that it was made sometime
>after about 1920 when this type of anatase went into production and
>before about 1930 when it was gradually succeeded by another product.
Actually, I'd be most surprised if that was reallly the case. Although the
1916 anatase process was indeed later improved to give a whiter product,
the effects of patent law must be take into consideration. The original
patent would expire in the early 1930s, which should have led to the
development of low-cost manufacture of a 1916-style product for purposes
where pure whiteness is not the critical factor (notably as a
lightener/opacifier/pale pigment for coloured paints, very relevant to the
VM)- but patents on the improvements in removing impurities would not
expire until some years later (probably during or after WWII). To give a
directly related example, most branded paint today uses rutile, but China
has a thriving industry making paint with anatase, because although it is
less durable, it is cheap to manufacture with patent-expired processes, and
effectively as good as rutile for interior use.
The dating given by the anatase (assuming that the anatase is indeed a
genuine component of the yellow ink on the map- the lower of the two
layers) may not be precise, but it would absolutely rule out a
pre-20th-century date for the lines on the medieval parchment. You might
want to ponder why so little has been done to establish whether the
mysterious 1950s substance which caused such problems with the C14 dating
really is a surface layer on which the ink lines were drawn. That would
narrow the dating down a lot, wouldn't it!
David B.
I.E_Johansson
"Never anonymous Bud" <new...@katxyzkave.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3dtb11ltmo7rlroia...@4ax.com...
> >California, Davis, together with 6 colleagues ..... determined that
> >although titanium is indeed often present in the ink, it is to be
> >found only in minute quantities, far less than McCrone had reported."
>
> is NOT naturally occurring, but milled to very small size.
>
> This DOES date it, as to the oldest it can be.
Only if you haven't seen the studyresults of Chinese color and ink. Somehow
they managed to prodoce with or without purpose what's here is said to have
taken to end of 1800's to produce. As did also
others during Medieval Age in Europe no matter that you don't know about it.
That argument was better than the other because it's valid, but it's a false
argument all the same in light of all known factors.
Inger E
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> The truth is out there,
>
> but it's not interesting enough for most people.
Philip Deitiker
> My point was that while provenance is certainly an important
consideration
> in the evaluation of an artifact, it is hardly a conclusive
matter. An
> artifact presented for sale (or for scholarly consideration)
without any
> information (or with a great deal of reluctance to provide
information)
> vis-a-vis its provenance comes with a built-in flashing
light that screams
> "warning, warning." However, it's entirely possible for
such an artifact to
> prove to be genuine, whereas artifacts allegedly well
provenanced can
> certainly prove out to be fakes.
> Which is why I did not raise the issue of provenance (permit
me to remind
> you that you did).
I raised the issue because it trumps the issue of the
parchment and ink. As you describe above, if the article
has a history which can be traced, for example you have a
video of some archaeologist removing it from the soil
and removing the carbon artifacts for dating, then you have a
level of scientific certainty as to how old the document is.
Then the date conclusions obtained are to be accepted.
But from a historical perspective a document without a
history and no provenance then you scientifically reject
it as genuine until the document proves its own case.
This document
> The recent NOVA program on the VM made provenance an
> issue, and properly so if my comments above are understood,
but then again,
> NOVA's purpose is to attract viewers and provide some
entertainment value.
> Starting the program off with mention of the lack of
provenance for the VM,
> and reminding viewers of that lack throughout the program,
certainly
> provided a "hook" that would keep folks not readily
conversant with either
> the VM or the science of archaeology discussed on the
program from changing
> the channel.
I saw the program many months ago, I think the Nova program
however was more interested in the political undertones of the
european period from 1890 to 1945.
>> It doesn't matter what the burden of Seppo's post was, the
>> reality is that there are independent factors that create
>> reasoning for not entertaining this map as of scientific
>> value.
>
> And the strongest is the ink, which was the first argument
presented by
> Seppo.
No, the strongest is its lack of provenance, the Ink is a
premise to which the conclusion might be changed, if the ink's
origin is found to align chronologically with the parchment,
which aligns with the potential origin of the paper in
proximity to someone who had made the journey or had great
knowledge of the journey, etc. IOW the conclusion is reject,
and when the other issues say probably the document is
genuine, then the conclusion changes.
There are other issues with this map, also, besides the ink.
The person who drew it had great knowledge of africa and
eastern mediterranean. And yet the Norse, per say, were not
great explorers of either areas. If it was a norse and he was
drawing a map of personal expertise, he would be drawing the
areas that he had explored. While we can name norse who had
been to continental north america, can you name a single norse
who had been to africa, the east coast of africa or india.
Therefore the individual who maps these coast would have to
have relied on a map made from someone else, once again
provenance, since we don't also have that map, or any
indication that such a map was ever made.
> Show that Seppo's claim on that matter is bogus, and you
blow the
> entire post out of the water *and* cast serious doubt on
Seppo's credibility
> in general. These objectives were, after all, a large part
of my purpose in
> bothering to reply to Seppo's post.
Everything seppo says comes from a kooks mouth, this is not
even an issue to begin with.
> Eric most certainly is trying to cloud the issue raised by
the ink on the
> map. Moreover, you are most certainly not "unclouding" or
addressing the
> topic of the ink my raising the entirely different (even if
very germane)
> issue of historical documentation. You see, Eric's post re
"dating" the ink
> is, as a matter of the science involved with the Vinland
Map, wholly an
> attempt to divert attention from the fact that the best
scientific evidence
> obtained to date clearly and definitively show the VM to be
a fake, and Eric
> can't stand that.
Fake is a ambiguous word. Does the map claim it is from the
15th century? If I draw a map from in the style of the 15th
century on the wall of my bedroom, is that a fake, I would
call it art. If the Nova documentary is correct, I think it
was designed to be a ruse, something to reilluminate the
thinking of the early 20th century european nationalist. And
yet oddly it has become the battle flag of some late 20th
century (swedish) european nationalist and cryptoracist.
Provenance would state that until proven otherwise the map
is not-genuine, nothing else more needs to be said. You may
flutter around and say the ink is from 1920, and then some ink
specialist working in a laboratory somewhere might find the
same kind of ink being used in 1820. Your arguments precise
dating is dependent on a precise knowledge of the history of
the ink, which may or may not be correct. But the provenance
of the artifact is what it is, and it is to be accepted as
this until information on its history (it in itself open for
examination) is chronologically increased.
> I disagree. The concept of how science approaches an
artifact is certainly
> relevant to an archaeology group.
So you agree that we should entertaine people with neo-nazi
thinking to consume this group with discussions of false
information and false artifacts rather than bringing actual
archaeological results and information for discussion.
>> I don't disagree with that but the papers I read did not
set
>> an exact date, and the speculation of when the anastase was
of
>> quality to result in the ink granules could be confidenced
in
>> a wider range if the history of anastase is incomplete.
>
> When, in archaeology, is an exact date ever set?? Surely
not in C14 dating,
> or in dendrochronolgy.
Exact enough.
> that the fossil dates to 8,123,456 BCE, or the arrow head
dates to 1685.
The quality of the Carbon-14 result diminishes along a 3
dimensional plot.
1. Age of sample reduces signal to noise
2. The amount of sample reduces signal
3. The percentage of nascent organic carbon in the original
sample.
The maximal reliable dating if 2 and 3 are high is about
25,000 years, beyond which the confidence interval will begin
to spread.
Exact dates prior to calender times are meaningless, one has
very little use for a date like. On april 23rd 11,235 BC Joe
smoe whack Fred Smoe upside the head. Calender dates and
historical dating are a completely human artifact and have no
meaning other than what we give to it.
Does it help you if you found an arrowhead dated to Feb 3rd
1685, and then the next arrowhead you find is from Jan 12th
1684.
When I was in Tosa-gomen the archaeologist had arranged all
the artefacts that were dated into three early period, the
early Yayoi, the middle Yayoi and the late Yayoi. Over the
period between 1000 BCE and 400 AD they then plotted the
distribution of artefacts over time. In the broader context of
the periods and the dates they show an increase in artefacts
from the early Yayoi to the middle Yayoi, and then a decline
at the inland sites and increase on the coastal sites. Exact
dates are meaningless, because what they are demostrating is a
trend over time.
The alternative is if you are dating a historical event. For
example a castle was attacked and subsequently burned. You go
in and date timbers and charcoal on the castles site, you come
up with dates for a timber with 40 rings that dates to 950 +/-
20 then you date a timber with 30 rings to 970 +/-10. The
korean historical record says a battle was in 963
(interpreting from a different calender) and the Japanese says
it was in 962 based on a different calender. The chinese have
the most accurate dating, from a 2nd hand chinese source the
battle was placed in early 964 AD.
Then as an archaeologist you find a piece of pottery in the
ruins which dates according to a local dating system to 964
(by the potters marks and similarity to other ceramics of
known date). However many other pieces of pottery are found
that date from 955 to 963.
What is the date of the battle and when the castle was
burned.
> Dating is quite often a range of dates. In the case of the
VM, as others
> have pointed out, the date can be expressed as the range
about 1920-1957
> (the date that it was presented for sale to Witten).
That date is based on assumptions about the ink. And the
question then arises on what is the confidence in the
technologies emergence. That is then cross-multiplied by the
prospect of any given individual having access to an emergent
technology.
> Some have pointed out
> that the technology to produce anatase of having the
characteristics of the
> anatase found on the VM existed earlier than 1920; if IIRC,
the allegation
> was 17th century. So a conservative date would be circa
1600-1957, a range
> that is hardly "huge" by archaeological or anthropological
standards, and
Archaeological accuracy is generally a relative function in
terms of distance from current period. Dating phenomena, for
instance give you a date of 2.3my +/- 0.3 my. This translates
into a relative error of 13%. If the peak date is ~1930 and
the range is from 1600-1957 then the relative range from
present is great. -36% to 433%. Acceptable ranges are between
-50% and +100% and beyond which scientist should have a level
of discomfort.
OTOH, something that Inger and Eric fail to factor in is the
probability of being dated from the skewed end of a
distribution, for example availability of inks of the type
from 1600 to 1920 may be rather limited, particularly in the
earlier period. For this reason one wants to define a percent
confidence interval and eliminate the low probability zones in
which the ink was unlikely used. Therefore the date range does
not accurately represent the probability distribution.
> still excludes the possibility that the VM is a genuine 15th
century
> artifact.
Correct. But this is the point that was being alluded to.
Eric Stevens
All this started from Seppo's statement that " The ink hasn't been
"dated" at all, ... " which as far as I know is perfectly correct.
Merely assigning an upper and lower limit to a date range is not
dating.
Eric Stevens
Philip Deitiker
But creating a confidence range based on probabilities is, for
everything can be defined this way, and in doing so it makes
precise dates and date ranges comparable.
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
____Groups_____
Mol Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Pal Anthro http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
Gliadin Sci http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/GliadinScience/
____Sites_____
David Johnson
Then almost _nothing_ in archaeology is dated - because almost everything
in archaeology comes with a +- date range (except for those rare items
with dates actually written on them where the dates in question are from
a chronology with strong linkages to the current system).
Heck, by this logic, this book sitting next to my computer ("Lord Darcy")
isn't dated as the copyright only says "1981," which gives it a range of
a whole _year_ in which it could have been created.
At best, you're just nitpicking - and grammatical nitpickig at that. In
practice, this is just you trying to obscure the issue...again.
Give it a rest. The thing's a fake, always has been, always will be.
David
--
_______________________________________________________________________
David Johnson home.earthlink.net/~trolleyfan
"You're a loony, you are!"
"They said that about Galileo, they said that about Einstein..."
"Yeah, and they said it about a good few loonies, too!"
Eric Stevens
<nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite> wrote:
>Apparently on date Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:41:06 +1300, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> said:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:35:10 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>><smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote in response to Philip Deitiker:
>>
>>In the case of the VM the anatase suggests that it was made sometime
>>after about 1920 when this type of anatase went into production and
>>before about 1930 when it was gradually succeeded by another product.
>>This gives a band of opportunity of 10 years but gives absolutely no
>>indication of when abouts in that band of ten years the map was
>>created.
>
>Not so. The ink has properties we recognise in a sort of ink that was
>commercially available at about that date. Obviously the only requirement is
>that the material components be older than the forgery.
>
>That would date the forgery to 1920 up until it's history is reasonable secure,
>(I'm guessing it's been safely looked after since about 1950.)
The point about which we are arguing. Seppo made a statement to the
effect that nobody had taken a sample of the ink and subject it to a
process which could be expected to yield a date. As far as I know he
is quite correct in this.
You also are quite correct in pointing out that once you accept
certain external constraints it is possible to assign a date-range for
its manufacture. But you still have not actually arrived at a precise
date (with or without an error band).
>
>The point about a forgery is it will probably contain anachronistic components,
>e.g. a Vinland map made with a laser printer won't fool anyone. The paper used
>in the VM might have been in "commercial" use from 1420 to 1430, for instance,
>but it doesn't mean the map must have been produced in a "band of opportunity"
>of 10 years. Although, if you assume it to be genuine, that would be your
>conclusion as to the date of it. You'd be swimming against the tide though
>particularly as the same "assuming it is genuine" date is 1920 to 1930 if you
>take the ink on face value.
>
>I mean, maybe the parchment is a bit older than usual, and the ink a bit
>earlier...
>
>
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In sci.archaeology, Steve Marcus created a message ID
Not necessarily so. You should consider the argument over the age of
the small Roman stoneware head found in Mexico a few years ago. There
is very little argument about the circumstances of its finding
(although some have tried to muddy the waters) but a great deal of
argument about its interpretation.
>Then the date conclusions obtained are to be accepted.
> But from a historical perspective a document without a
>history and no provenance then you scientifically reject
>it as genuine until the document proves its own case.
Eric Stevens
You now seem to be conceding that Seppo's statement was correct. I
find it difficult to see how even you can claim to be mislead by
correct statements.
>For that matter, what was the
>value or purpose of your defense of Seppo's point, other than to mislead??
Seppo's statement was correct. Your argument against it wasn't.
Why should you use an incorrect argument for any reason other than to
mislead?
Aaaagh .... never mind.
You are back on ignore for the time being.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
That is a childishly simplistic understanding of what those limits
mean and I am confident you are pretending to it to mislead.
An age may be described as 484 years +/- 8 years. You could say that
the age was therefore 476 to 492 years but you would be wrong unless
you actually said that you are 90% confident that the age was 476 to
492 years. However, if 90% confidence was not good enough for you and
you demanded 99%, you might then find that the age was 484 +/- 37
years. You now have a range from 447 to 521 years.
The argument as to the age of the ink of the VM based on the finding
of anatase. The lower limit is quite firm and immovable. The ink could
not have been made before the invention of the process to make that
type of anatase. Similarly, the ink had to have been made before the
date of public production of the complete map. No uncertainty
whatsoever.
Was my statement "Nor did they all give it up simultaneously" too
hard for you to follow?
>
>Your analysis is totally irrelevant to the matter of the VM being a fake,
>Seppo's original comment re dating was outlandishly wrong and designed to
>mislead.
Please tell me who has subject the ink of the Vinland map to a process
designed to yield a specific age or date as the end product. If you
can't, then you can't show Seppo to be wrong.
>Your support of Seppo's original comment is also outlandishly
>wrong, and is also designed to mislead. Even your own analysis re the "ten
>year period" that you discuss above were completely logical and accurate,
>the date established thereby (about 1920 -> 1930 + X years) still shows that
>the VM is not a 15th century artifact. Which is a fact that Seppo was
>arguing against, and a fact that you hate accepting.
Once again you are demonstrating that you don't care how shonky are
the steps by which you get there. All you care about is getting your
'right' answer. You don't care how.
Back onto ignore.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote in message
><0fqa115lk1v41cara...@4ax.com>...
>>
>>In the case of the VM the anatase suggests that it was made sometime
>>after about 1920 when this type of anatase went into production and
>>before about 1930 when it was gradually succeeded by another product.
>
>Actually, I'd be most surprised if that was reallly the case. Although the
>1916 anatase process was indeed later improved to give a whiter product,
>the effects of patent law must be take into consideration. The original
>patent would expire in the early 1930s, which should have led to the
>development of low-cost manufacture of a 1916-style product for purposes
>where pure whiteness is not the critical factor (notably as a
>lightener/opacifier/pale pigment for coloured paints, very relevant to the
>VM)- but patents on the improvements in removing impurities would not
>expire until some years later (probably during or after WWII). To give a
>directly related example, most branded paint today uses rutile, but China
>has a thriving industry making paint with anatase, because although it is
>less durable, it is cheap to manufacture with patent-expired processes, and
>effectively as good as rutile for interior use.
I fully accept what you say but in my article I didn't want to get too
far away from the baasic principles which cause a date range to differ
from a date.
>
>The dating given by the anatase (assuming that the anatase is indeed a
>genuine component of the yellow ink on the map- the lower of the two
>layers) may not be precise, but it would absolutely rule out a
>pre-20th-century date for the lines on the medieval parchment. You might
>want to ponder why so little has been done to establish whether the
>mysterious 1950s substance which caused such problems with the C14 dating
>really is a surface layer on which the ink lines were drawn. That would
>narrow the dating down a lot, wouldn't it!
I've always been dissatisfied with the public explanations given about
this. Gaps have been left uncovered in the logic.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<new...@katxyzkave.net> wrote:
>Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au> scribed:
>
>>Let me remind you of this "Thomas Cahill of the University of
>>California, Davis, together with 6 colleagues ..... determined that
>>although titanium is indeed often present in the ink, it is to be
>>found only in minute quantities, far less than McCrone had reported."
>
>While you either ignore, OR are ignorant of, the fact that the titanium
>is NOT naturally occurring, but milled to very small size.
Crystallised and milled to a very uniform size range.
>
>This DOES date it, as to the oldest it can be.
Eric Stevens
Tedd Jacobs
"Eric Stevens" wrote...
[...]
> Merely assigning an upper and lower limit to a date range is not
> dating.
and so Omo I & Omo II have not been dated?
ouch eric. that kind of logic will lead you to sepponic statements like
"mammals are not animals".
Philip Deitiker
news:abgc11h8bq05daedr...@4ax.com:
ago. There
> is very little argument about the circumstances of its
finding
> (although some have tried to muddy the waters) but a great
deal of
> argument about its interpretation.
There is no argument about its authenticity, just on what
it means in terms of placement and dating. There is an
independent argument about VM authenticity based on its
provenance. Now you are trying to cloud the waters.
Eric Stevens
I think you are losing sight of the original argument. Seppo wrote:
"The ink hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good
starting point."
.. and Steve Marcus replied.
>
"Nope. Simply wrong. The ink has been shown to be a product that
could not have been produced in the 15th century."
I went on to say:
Typical Marcus. Trying to contradict someone (in this case Seppo)
by citing something quite different.
No matter what or what has not been said about when the ink could
or could not have been made, Seppo's point was that it has not been
dated.
Remember the first sentence of the article which started this
thread?:
"So the vineland map is a hoax and the ink dated after 1930".
Seppo first said that this is "Not possible." and now has said "The
ink hasn't been "dated" at all .... ".
Steve has steadfastly tried to turn the discussion into something both
broader and different and you unwittingly seem to be following him.
One of my articles pointed out the difference between a specific
dating with upper and lower confidence limits, and the assignment of a
date range from boundary conditions.
I expect artifacts from Omo have been specifically dated (with
confidence limits) and the site has been assigned a date range. The
end result may be the same to the careless thinker in that in each
case the dates will be described by two numbers. However, the meaning
and significance of the numbers is different in each case.
The age of the earth is approximately 4.55 billion years (see
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html ) but I would be
foollish to claim that I had dated an artifact merely by saying that
it clearly had to be less than 4.55 billion years old. The age of the
earth helps establish one of the limits of a date range but it does
not establish an actual date for an artifact.
I'm not splitting hairs. I'm trying to be carefully precise when
describing what I'm talking about.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
I can see mathematics is not your forte :-)
>
>Give it a rest. The thing's a fake, always has been, always will be.
>
>David
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Donev...@worlnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> says in
>news:3rcb11tqhdcrf8fkv...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:45:59 -0700, "Tedd Jacobs"
>> <Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Eric Stevens" wrote...
>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:23:45 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> --- snip ---
>>>>>stating that artifact X cannot have been produced later than
>>>>>date Y *is* considered to be dating the artifact.
>>>>
>>>> Sez who?
>>>
>>>it's called a typology eric. or were you baiting?
>>>
>>>
>> All this started from Seppo's statement that " The ink hasn't been
>> "dated" at all, ... " which as far as I know is perfectly correct.
>> Merely assigning an upper and lower limit to a date range is not
>> dating.
>
>But creating a confidence range based on probabilities is, for
>everything can be defined this way, and in doing so it makes
>precise dates and date ranges comparable.
I thought you would have understood the difference between confidence
limits and dates set by boundary conditions.
Mozart was born on January 27, 1756 and died on December 4, 1792.
These dates are known and there is no uncertainty about them. These
dates set absolute boundary conditions.
Clearly these dates can be used to assign a limiting date range for a
newly discovered manuscript score in Mozart's own hand. It has to have
been written between the range described between those two dates.
Radiocarbon dating the paper will yield a specific date but because of
the confidence limits of the various steps of the process by which the
date was arrived at upper and lower dates can be assigned along with
their associated confidence limits. Change the confidence limits and
the nominally upper and lower radiocarbon dates also change. In any
case, one cannot be absolutely confident that the age of the
manuscript paper lies outside the upper and lower confidence limits.
The fact that in both cases we use two numbers to describe the
possible age of the manuscript does not mean that the meaning of the
numbers is the same in both cases. That's why Steve Marcus's original
denial of the Seppo's statement was wrong. He was trying to contradict
chalk with cheese.
Eric Stevens
I.E_Johansson
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:57ic11tec7nkp4i4k...@4ax.com...
But there exist, and that's what some here seem to be unaware of, ink from
Medieval Age containing exact that type of Titanium which scholars have been
so kind enought to say not was possible to exist before 1900.....
Medieval ink and color are a more complex, rarely studied and openly
discussed subject that what's been known to scholars of chemistry and
archaeology today. Compare for example with the BaCuSi2O6 and BaCuSi4O found
in the so called Han-dark purple color on cheramic and pottery from 2nd
century BC in China. It wasn't possible for Modern Age Chemists and
Technologists to produse either until late 20th century. Hadn't the Chinese
artifacts been known well before that time, and before the color had been
analyzed, same idiotic and infantile arguments, 'it could not have been
made before' this or that 20th century year, probably would have been used
as arguments for the Chinese artifacts.
All assumptions that earlier production of too pure and to alike size
particles of this or that element or chemical formula, by chance or by
extensive studies of chemistry which we today are unaware of
that existed, are invalid arguments if the scholar who uses such arguments
haven't proven from a series of independent large comperative studies, not
only tests, that he or she hasn't been able to find the element and/or
chemical formula in any document or artifact dated to the age the scholar
disputes.
We do as Olin and others noted know of Medieval documents with Titanium of
exact same 'calibre' in the ink as the Titanium in the anathase. We do know
of Medieval colors containting the anathase which some here still disputes
could have existed. What's more, we do know of such color being used in same
monestry's copy-workshops as the ink containing Titanium.
If we more relevant discussions as how someone could have reached exact date
1434 +/- 11 year when looking for parchment inside, observe this the pages
on which the VM was drawn is proven to have been together with the Tartar
document when that was bound which were well before 1900's, the Tartar
documents that had no earlier drawing and/or writing on. Find good and solid
information for that as a starter.
Please also note that either the VM or a map with the Western Hemisphere
alike VM has good provenance to have existed from late 15th century up to
1939 together with the map of Nicholas of Thingeyre. This later fact I will
not discuss here and now, but you all better know this as well as that there
was a specific thing in the Scandinavian History of King Erik's the Papal
Church related to the date 1434 AD which you better explain. Because if you
can't the dated parchment in itself, especially found together with the
Tartar documents, is too strong to be denied in the way it's been here.
Inger E
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
Steve Marcus
You have even more trouble reading for comprehension than I had given you
credit for.
Seppo's post said nothing about "exact dates." Seppo wrote: "The ink
hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good starting
point." This statement is incorrect. The ink on the Vinland Map has been
dated, the dating has been in terms of a range of dates.
There is nothing unusual about an artifact being dated in terms of a range
of years. Many artifacts that are C14 dated to "X years before present, plus
or minus Y years", like many fossils or other artifacts (say arrow heads)
that are dated by reference to geological strata and are dated to "year X,
plus or minus Y years". So notwithstanding that the date may be a range of
dates, the ink on the Vinland Map has in fact been dated. It wais dated by
McCrone and Brown/Clark's work to circa1920, and the upper range for the VM
would be the date that the it was shown to Witten, 1957. Assuming that one
wanted to allow for the 17th century existence of technology by which one
could have produced small quantities of anatase of the sort found in the ink
on the VM, the range would be 1600 CE - 1957 CE. That still is "dating" the
ink, and the range is far smaller than is often given for fossil finds, as
one example.
>
>>For that matter, what was the
>>value or purpose of your defense of Seppo's point, other than to mislead??
>
> Seppo's statement was correct. Your argument against it wasn't.
That's both wrong, and dishonest. In the field of archaeology, in the field
of anthropology, in the field of geology, and with respect to artifacts in
general, dating is quite often in terms of ranges of dates. No one speaks
of the necessity of having an "exact date", and Seppo surely did not do so.
>
> Why should you use an incorrect argument for any reason other than to
> mislead?
You are the one doing that, not I. The difference is that I know why you
are doing it. As previously posted, you just can't stand it that the present
state of the evidence clearly establishes that VM is a fake. So, as
previously predicted, you are generating reams of squink to divert attention
(principally your own attention) from that fact.
>
>
> Aaaagh .... never mind.
>
> You are back on ignore for the time being.
>
Right. Sure I am, Eric.
Philip Deitiker
Irrelevant.
> Clearly these dates can be used to assign a limiting date
range for a
> newly discovered manuscript score in Mozart's own hand. It
has to have
> been written between the range described between those two
dates.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Do you know precisely when say the Declaration of
Independence was written. You know when it was signed, but
what about written. Can you tell me exactly when I wrote a
manuscript that was published on a certain date. Can you tell
from the birth record when a child was concieved, the exact
date.
There are 'dates' for discrete events. There are dates for
events. For example if I was born in the early part of 1951 I
can date my conception to 1950. That is a date. If for
instance I found a corpse under a battlefeild with say civil
war attire on and a bullet hole in the uniform, I could date
that death to 1860s that is also a date, even though that
individual did die on a specific date, I don't know that
specifically.
The argument is not over whether a date can be represented
by a date range that in many instances is treated as a date,
since in many cases no specific date is expected so that the
question of specific date is moot to begin with. The argument
was over whether that date range is meaningful and how it is
meaningful.
> Radiocarbon dating the paper will yield a specific date but
because of
> the confidence limits of the various steps of the process by
which the
> date was arrived at upper and lower dates can be assigned
along with
> their associated confidence limits. Change the confidence
limits and
> the nominally upper and lower radiocarbon dates also change.
In any
> case, one cannot be absolutely confident that the age of the
> manuscript paper lies outside the upper and lower confidence
limits.
>
> The fact that in both cases we use two numbers to describe
the
> possible age of the manuscript does not mean that the
meaning of the
> numbers is the same in both cases. That's why Steve Marcus's
original
> denial of the Seppo's statement was wrong. He was trying to
contradict
> chalk with cheese.
Historical dates only apply to a small subset of historical
timeline, they are convinient, and certainly useful in
autobiographical means. However you are clouding this issue
because a woman takes a few hours to birth a child at most a
few hours, and death occurs in moments. The manufactoring of a
map may take weeks and it may not be revealed in public for
months, if not years later. Therefore your consideration of
exact date is meaningless in this context. But there is no
date for when this map was penned, not even a approximate date
based on any historical document other than its first public
appearance. It would be akin to the date of birth of a stone
age person in which the anthropologist is trying to estimate
based on oral traditions of a group. The only methods you have
are interpretive in nature and are an approximation.
Chances are however if the child is 1 month old you will
have a better estimate of the age than if the child is 14
years old. This is the relevance of relative dating. Relative
dating can result in a date which is a day, a week, a month, a
year, a decade, a century. Depending on its distance from the
current will reveal meaning of that date. In most cases, and
even some cases of birth, for instance, the birth of a child
may not be recorded until the baptism, or for instance may be
kept secret as a result of marital infidelity, exact dates are
rarities in ancient history.
Can you tell me the exact date in a roman calender that leif
ericson stepped on continental america for the first time.
When I left Japan it was the 9th, for a 30 minute period I
crossed the international date line and it was the 8th, and
then it was the 9th as I traveled further east. What is a date
that you are so intent on distinquishing from dating?
And shall we use your same standard of critique for
everything, and if so the VM does not have a precise date of
creation, therefore it is a fraud? Correct? Mercators map does
not have a precise date of creation therefore it is a fraud?
Shall I continue?
--
Philip
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
Evol. of Xchrom.
http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
Alaca
>
> Medieval ink and color are a more complex, rarely studied and openly
... and then only after eleven.
--
P.A.
Steve Marcus
post.
Whatever you may say re provenance and initial presumptions regarding the
authenticity of a given artifact, and much of it is indisputable, my sole
purpose in replying to Seppo's initial post was to point out that his claim
that the ink on the Vinland Map hadn't been "dated" was simply incorrect.
The VM has been dated; it's hugely unlikey to be older than about 1920 and
it is not newer than 1957. At worst if could conceivably be 17th century at
the earliest. Dating can, and quite often does, take the form of a range.
And in this case, the dating was far more effective to establish that the VM
is a fake (at least on the present evidence) than the questionable
provenance of the VM.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
"Philip Deitiker" <Nopd...@att.net.Spam> wrote in message
news:Xns96016C...@128.249.2.19...
Steve Marcus
Bull. You are simply generating squink. As others have pointed out, if one
can give a range of dates for an artifact, the artifact has been dated. For
example, the Maine Penny, an authentic artifact that may put the Norse in
Maine circa mid 11th century (or may not, but that's another discussion) is
dated to 1065 - 1080 CE. The anatase on the VM has been dated circa 1920 -
1957 CE (circa 1920 being the date that the anatase was commercially
available and 1957 the date on which the VM was offered for sale).
Technology that might have permitted manufacture of anatase of the type
found on the VM may have existed earlier, say 17th century. So you may
expand the range if you wish. But the ink clearly is dated post 15th
century.
On the present evidence the Vinland Map is a fake. Deal with it.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
In archaeology, establishing a _terminus post quem_ is a useful
step in dating. That is what has been done in the VM case,
should the Danes not find some compelling countering evidence. :-)
In the (shudder) KRS case, Wolter and others suggest that their
study of the stone provides a _terminus ante quem_ data point of
ca. 200 ya. While not an exact date, if true, it certainly isn't
without consequence to the debate about its authenticity.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens created a message ID
>news:abgc11h8bq05daedr...@4ax.com:
>
>ago. There
>> is very little argument about the circumstances of its
>finding
>> (although some have tried to muddy the waters) but a great
>deal of
>> argument about its interpretation.
>
>There is no argument about its authenticity, just on what
>it means in terms of placement and dating. There is an
>independent argument about VM authenticity based on its
>provenance. Now you are trying to cloud the waters.
Not me. I only interjected on the simple matter of whether or not the
INK had been dated. All these other issues have been dragged in by
other people.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
But in neither case do they give an absolute date (with, or without,
confidence limits).
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>The argument
>was over whether that date range is meaningful and how it is
>meaningful.
The argument was over whether or not the INK has been dated. As far as
I know it has not.
A date range may be assigned to the anatase but that is not
necessarily the same as the ink. Even if it is, its not a date, its a
date range.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
When asked for your birthday, do you give a date or a date range?
>
>There is nothing unusual about an artifact being dated in terms of a range
>of years. Many artifacts that are C14 dated to "X years before present, plus
>or minus Y years", ...
Dishonestly ploughing on, ignoring the fact that I have several times
pointed out that in the circumstances described, the plus or minus Y
relates to confidence limits. They are not absolute limits at all.
Demand a higher degree of confidence and the the value of Y will
increase.
> ... like many fossils or other artifacts (say arrow heads)
>that are dated by reference to geological strata and are dated to "year X,
>plus or minus Y years". So notwithstanding that the date may be a range of
>dates, the ink on the Vinland Map has in fact been dated. It wais dated by
>McCrone and Brown/Clark's work to circa1920, and the upper range for the VM
>would be the date that the it was shown to Witten, 1957. Assuming that one
>wanted to allow for the 17th century existence of technology by which one
>could have produced small quantities of anatase of the sort found in the ink
>on the VM, the range would be 1600 CE - 1957 CE. That still is "dating" the
>ink, and the range is far smaller than is often given for fossil finds, as
>one example.
You are a hoot.
>
>>
>>>For that matter, what was the
>>>value or purpose of your defense of Seppo's point, other than to mislead??
>>
>> Seppo's statement was correct. Your argument against it wasn't.
>
>That's both wrong, and dishonest. In the field of archaeology, in the field
>of anthropology, in the field of geology, and with respect to artifacts in
>general, dating is quite often in terms of ranges of dates. No one speaks
>of the necessity of having an "exact date", and Seppo surely did not do so.
Learn some statistics. Discover the meaning of confidence limits (I
suspect you already know).
>>
>> Why should you use an incorrect argument for any reason other than to
>> mislead?
>
>You are the one doing that, not I. The difference is that I know why you
>are doing it. As previously posted, you just can't stand it that the present
>state of the evidence clearly establishes that VM is a fake. So, as
>previously predicted, you are generating reams of squink to divert attention
>(principally your own attention) from that fact.
Typical Marcus. Trying to contradict someone (in this case me) by
citing something quite different.
No matter what or what has not been said about when the authenticity
of the VM, my point was that Seppo's point was correct: the ink has
not been dated.
>>
>>
>> Aaaagh .... never mind.
>>
>> You are back on ignore for the time being.
>>
>
>Right. Sure I am, Eric.
This time I mean it.
Eric Stevens
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
dav...@tronospamchos.freeserve.co.uk (David B.) wrote:
> Not a long date range, by historical standards!
Actually the use of a carbon based ink should raise questions,
regardless of other factors. The preferred ink for most of the
medieval period was an oak gall derived one. This had an etching
effect on the substrate which did not matter to much for parchment but
was destructive to paper. The use of carbon became much more common
when paper was adopted.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Lukas Pietsch
>>>Seppo's statement was correct. Your argument against it wasn't.
>>
>>That's both wrong, and dishonest. In the field of archaeology, in the field
>>of anthropology, in the field of geology, and with respect to artifacts in
>>general, dating is quite often in terms of ranges of dates. No one speaks
>>of the necessity of having an "exact date", and Seppo surely did not do so.
>
>
> Learn some statistics. Discover the meaning of confidence limits (I
> suspect you already know).
Eric, stop it. You are wrong, Steve is right. "Datings" can be stated in
a number of formats: by giving an exact calendar date (i.e. an exact
time point); by giving a terminus post quem and/or terminus ante quem
(i.e. a time range); or by giving an estimate time point plus
confindence interval, as you described. The fact that some methods such
as radiocarbon dating use this third format does not entail that other
methods do not also count as "dating". In philology and historical
studies, for all I can see, it is absolutely commonplace and
unobjectionable to say that "such-and-such an artifact has been dated to
before/after such-and-such a time point", taking "dating" to mean in
effect "supplying a terminus post quem and/or ante quem". The VM has
been "dated" in that sense. For me, that is a legitimate instance of
"dating" if ever there was one.
Lukas
Lukas Pietsch
>> In archaeology, establishing a _terminus post quem_ is a useful
>>step in dating. That is what has been done in the VM case,
>>should the Danes not find some compelling countering evidence. :-)
>>
>> In the (shudder) KRS case, Wolter and others suggest that their
>>study of the stone provides a _terminus ante quem_ data point of
>>ca. 200 ya. While not an exact date, if true, it certainly isn't
>>without consequence to the debate about its authenticity.
>
>
> But in neither case do they give an absolute date (with, or without,
> confidence limits).
... Which, as a lot of people have been pointing out to you, is not a
necessary criterion for the term "dating" to apply. Get it?
Lukas
Steve Marcus
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:21:44 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:vpfc11pjj7oggn6g0...@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:44:47 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>news:5tra11plhrkn2kuhq...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On 18 Feb 2005 03:23:00 GMT, Philip Deitiker <Nopd...@att.net.Spam>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
<snip>
>>>
>>> You now seem to be conceding that Seppo's statement was correct. I
>>> find it difficult to see how even you can claim to be mislead by
>>> correct statements.
>>
>>You have even more trouble reading for comprehension than I had given you
>>credit for.
>>
>>Seppo's post said nothing about "exact dates." Seppo wrote: "The ink
>>hasn't been "dated" at all, contrary to the claim, is a good starting
>>point." This statement is incorrect. The ink on the Vinland Map has been
>>dated, the dating has been in terms of a range of dates.
>
> When asked for your birthday, do you give a date or a date range?
Irrelevant. Total squink. The topic was dating an artifact,namely the
Vinland Map. Artifacts are commonly dated with ranges, not exact dates.
Seppo's post said nothing about "exact dates"; the claim was that the ink
hadn't been "dated" (quotes are in Seppo's original post) at all.
>>There is nothing unusual about an artifact being dated in terms of a range
>>of years. Many artifacts that are C14 dated to "X years before present,
>>plus
>>or minus Y years", ...
>
> Dishonestly ploughing on, ignoring the fact that I have several times
> pointed out that in the circumstances described, the plus or minus Y
> relates to confidence limits. They are not absolute limits at all.
> Demand a higher degree of confidence and the the value of Y will
> increase.
Squink. I don't care if the + or - relates to confidence limits, or to an
allowance for the possibility that the moon is made of green cheese. When
written in that form the "date" conveyed is that an artifact can be dated to
a given range (or sometimes a given year), but may be somewhat older or
somewhat younger. An "exact date" is not being conveyed at all. See the
link provided below.
>
>> ... like many fossils or other artifacts (say arrow heads)
>>that are dated by reference to geological strata and are dated to "year X,
>>plus or minus Y years". So notwithstanding that the date may be a range
>>of
>>dates, the ink on the Vinland Map has in fact been dated. It wais dated
>>by
>>McCrone and Brown/Clark's work to circa1920, and the upper range for the
>>VM
>>would be the date that the it was shown to Witten, 1957. Assuming that
>>one
>>wanted to allow for the 17th century existence of technology by which one
>>could have produced small quantities of anatase of the sort found in the
>>ink
>>on the VM, the range would be 1600 CE - 1957 CE. That still is "dating"
>>the
>>ink, and the range is far smaller than is often given for fossil finds, as
>>one example.
>
> You are a hoot.
And you are a dishonest jerk, interested only in such "evidence" as might
confirm your pet beliefs (anything involving "alternative history") and
unwilling to accept hard evidence that demonstrates that any of those
beliefs are wrong.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>For that matter, what was the
>>>>value or purpose of your defense of Seppo's point, other than to
>>>>mislead??
>>>
>>> Seppo's statement was correct. Your argument against it wasn't.
>>
>>That's both wrong, and dishonest. In the field of archaeology, in the
>>field
>>of anthropology, in the field of geology, and with respect to artifacts in
>>general, dating is quite often in terms of ranges of dates. No one speaks
>>of the necessity of having an "exact date", and Seppo surely did not do
>>so.
>
> Learn some statistics. Discover the meaning of confidence limits (I
> suspect you already know).
More squink. If I tell you that I was born on a given day in 1949, and
don't qualify that in any way, then I've given an "exact date." If I tell
you the an artifact was created 1,000 years ago (1,000 years before
present), I'm not giving an exact date, I'm giving a 365 day range. If I
tell you 1,000 years ago, + or - 100 years, I'm telling you that the
artifact can possibly be 1100 to 900 years old; perhaps more likely 1,000
years old, but not certainly.
Since you believe the internet to be the best source of knowledge, read this
link and inform yourself:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/aucilla12_1/radio99.htm
Try paying particular attention to this quote from the link:
"A common practice is to report a C14 date as the single middle date (in our
example, 10,000 years). This is misleading since there is actually an equal
chance the true date of the branch will fall anywhere within the 400 year
margin of error."
>>>
>>> Why should you use an incorrect argument for any reason other than to
>>> mislead?
>>
>>You are the one doing that, not I. The difference is that I know why you
>>are doing it. As previously posted, you just can't stand it that the
>>present
>>state of the evidence clearly establishes that VM is a fake. So, as
>>previously predicted, you are generating reams of squink to divert
>>attention
>>(principally your own attention) from that fact.
>
> Typical Marcus. Trying to contradict someone (in this case me) by
> citing something quite different.
Not responsive to what I posted. I claim that you are using a misleading
arguement and generating squink on this matter because you can't stand the
fact that the current state of the evidence clearly establishes that the VM
is fake. You don't bother to confirm or deny it. I wonder why.
>
> No matter what or what has not been said about when the authenticity
> of the VM, my point was that Seppo's point was correct: the ink has
> not been dated.
And your point is wrong, because you are using a concept of "dated" which
has only limited application to the dating of an artifact. Seppo's post
says "dated", not "exact date." There is a difference in the context of
archaeology, and you damed well know it. You are simply generating squink
because in this case, we know that the ink on the Vinland map most likely
isn't older than 1920, or newer than 1957. The ink *has been dated* to
circa 1920 - 1957. That makes the VM a fake. If, in accordance with some
claims by another poster, we expand the lower end of the range to the 17th
century, in order to allow for the possibility that the technical capability
to make anatase of the sort found on the Vinland Map existed back then
(although why anyone would want to, or even know that they could do so,
presents a bit of a problem), then the map is still a fake.
>>>
>>>
>>> Aaaagh .... never mind.
>>>
>>> You are back on ignore for the time being.
>>>
>>
>>Right. Sure I am, Eric.
>
> This time I mean it.
Sure you do, Eric. Until the next time.
Steve Marcus
And the squink goes on. Leave it to Eric to nitpick the smallest
irrelevancy; anything to confuse the issue of whether or not the Vinland Map
is authentic, which on the current evidence it is not.
The anatase containing yellow pigment was applied to the VM. It is dated to
not earlier than 1920. The black pigment (ink or otherwise) was applied
over the yellow line. Whether that black pigment (ink or otherwise) was
made 600 years ago or 60 years ago is irrelevant. Seppo's original post was
intended to convey the idea that the lines on the VM hadn't been dated; in
discussing the Vinland Map, people have used the term "ink" as generic to
the material constituting the lines on the Map, because it is the age of the
material that constitutes those lines that's important, and it's convenient
to simply say ink when discussing those lines.
Martyn Harrison
<inger_e....@telia.com> said:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
>news:57ic11tec7nkp4i4k...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 14:04:55 GMT, Never anonymous Bud
>> <new...@katxyzkave.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Using a finger dipped in purple ink, Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.com.au>
>scribed:
>> >
>> >>Let me remind you of this "Thomas Cahill of the University of
>> >>California, Davis, together with 6 colleagues ..... determined that
>> >>although titanium is indeed often present in the ink, it is to be
>> >>found only in minute quantities, far less than McCrone had reported."
>> >
>> >While you either ignore, OR are ignorant of, the fact that the titanium
>> >is NOT naturally occurring, but milled to very small size.
>>
>> Crystallised and milled to a very uniform size range.
>> >
>> >This DOES date it, as to the oldest it can be.
>
>But there exist, and that's what some here seem to be unaware of, ink from
>Medieval Age containing exact that type of Titanium which scholars have been
>so kind enought to say not was possible to exist before 1900.....
For the benefit of any lurkers who don't understand the issues here. Also you
Inger, as you are arguing against an assertion that hasn't been made the way
you are taking it.
Anatase is a mineral, that is a type of rock. It's naturally occurring and
anatase existed long before history began. It's a simple chemical - TiO2 which
is just Titanium Dioxide.
It's not particularly surprising to find it anywhere in the world from any
period. Viking maps could use it, not a problem.
The anatase consists of TiO2 in a crystalline structure, sort of pointy diamond
shapes. The more molecules in the crystal, the larger it is.
The crystals will, if you take anatase and grind it down, tend to comprise a
variety of shapes, fragments and sizes, they'll be microscopic rather than big
lumps, obviously, you keep going until it's a powder.
Now the key issue in this question is this:
1) when you grind down the mineral anatase into a fine powder, you will get a
range of sizes of the particles.
2) if you then use a process of filtering and grading, you can take a quantity
of anatase powder and produce various grades, e.g. fine particles for use in
pharmaceutical, low abrasion and foodstuffs, coarser particles for paper
surface treatments, and so on.
The characteristics of "making anatase into a powder" mean range of particle
sizes. And an industrial process of refining the powder for a range of
applications with different needs or to produce better properties, means a
given product from that refinement will have a consistent particle size
because, that's the difference between a generic powdered anatase and a modern,
refined product from an industrial process.
Some of the industrial product will have consistently large particles, some
will have consistently small particles, some will be a mixture of specific
sized particles, e.g. a 33% / 67% mix of 170 - 230 nm and 500 - 650 nm
particles, or whatever. You can *also* have a modern output of a range of
different particle sizes of anatase because you can just not bother to grade
and refine the ground up dust. That can be old or modern.
When the white pigment was studied, the study alleges that what they found was
a consistent size of anatase particles and they concluded this was indicative
of an industrial process because refining the powdered anatase is how you get
that phenomenon.
You don't get it from grinding it down, and you don't need it to make white
pigment in medieval times. Hence, the suggestion - and it's a strong one - is
that commercially graded anatase didn't really come about until the modern era
and this is commercial grade anatase rather than something merely ground down
to make pigment.
Steve Marcus
"Lukas Pietsch" <lukas....@invalid-uni-hamburg.de> wrote in message
news:421727b3$0$8760$9b62...@news.freenet.de...
He does. But he won't admit it. He would rather discuss the matter for a
few weeks (or months), rather than conceding that the Vinland Map appears to
be a fake. He enjoys diverting attention from the truth when the truth
isn't what he wants to hear or know.
>
> Lukas
Steve Marcus
They would if they could, but they can't. So they give an inexact date,
which is, after all is said and done (the data is peer reviewed, published
and found to be consistent and supportive of the conclusions that are
asserted), would be accepted as "the date" that we currently have.
One more time: Seppo said nothing about "exact date", or "absolute date."
He said the ink hadn't been dated. That's wrong. And even after two more
months of you generating volumes of squink on the topic, will still be
wrong. Period.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Martyn Harrison
>On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 09:59:01 GMT, Martyn Harrison
><nos...@spammers.of.the.world.unite> wrote:
>>
>>That would date the forgery to 1920 up until it's history is reasonable secure,
>>(I'm guessing it's been safely looked after since about 1950.)
>
>The point about which we are arguing. Seppo made a statement to the
>effect that nobody had taken a sample of the ink and subject it to a
>process which could be expected to yield a date. As far as I know he
>is quite correct in this.
You're doubly wrong then, a sample of the ink was taken and subjected to an
analysis which yielded a date for the ink of 1916 onwards.
To insist that all dating techniques that do not yield a single date are to be
discarded because of that, is crackpottery.
David B
>
>A date range may be assigned to the anatase but that is not
>necessarily the same as the ink.
But if the anatase is inside the ink, then it can be used to provide an
earliest date for the ink in the same way that a coin buried in the
foundations can provide an earliest date for a building.
David B.
Alaca
> [...]
Let's get technical
*Pigments through the Ages*
http://tinyurl.com/6yjho
"Titanium White is truly the white of the 20th century.
Although the titanium pigment, titanium dioxide was
discovered in 1821, it was not until 1916 that modern
technology had progressed to the point where it could
be mass produced.
First made commercially in Norway for industrial
purposes, it was not until 1921 that a titanium
white oil color suitable for artistic purposes was
introduced by an American manufacturer.
There are many industrial grades of titanium white
pigment, none of which are used in their pure
form for artists oil color"
*Lexikon der Farbstoffe und Pigmente*
http://tinyurl.com/3v9ny
*Mineralogy Database*
http://tinyurl.com/3kbkd
*Titanium dioxide - Definition, Meaning, Explanation*
http://tinyurl.com/3n2ta
*Global distribution of elements*
http://tinyurl.com/3jehe
--
- Peter Alaca -
Tom McDonald
So what? Seppo's comment was about _dating_, saying "The ink
hasn't been "dated" at all...." He was wrong; it has been dated.
Just when did 'absolute date' come into this?
You seem to be making a point about accuracy and precision.
That's interesting. But as someone pointed out, there is
uncertainty about almost any date. For the vast majority of
people who have ever lived, even their birthday wasn't known to
a calendar date. Yet people had no difficulty making decisions
that related to age.
We have vanishingly few absolute dates in archaeology, in the
sense you mean. Most probably none at all. Yet one cannot say
that many artifacts, sites, etc., aren't dated. Unless you
insist on a definition of 'dated' that is cesium-clock anal
about precise accuracy.
Since this is an archaeology ng, what point do you wish to make
about the dating of archaeological materials?
Steve Marcus
"Tom McDonald" <tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote in message
news:SRLRd.5176$hB2....@fe03.lga...
I'll presume to answer for him: none.
His original post was made because he didn't appreciate _me_ hammering
Seppo's post on the nonsensical comment it contained re the dating and he
didn't like the fact that the dating currently shows the Vinland Map to be a
fake. His posts thereafter have been in accordance with his usual modus
operandi when someone (or a plurality of someones) show(s) that some pet
belief of his can not be supported on the existing evidence, and/or that the
logic contained in one his posts is of the extremely fuzzy variety; he will
nitpick something not particularly germane to the matter and generate
volumes of squid ink about it.
In this case, the point he is trying to cloud is that the VM appears to be a
fake on the current state of the evidence. Why? Because this not only
puts paid (at least for now) to one of his pet beliefs, it casts doubt on
the veracity of his main squeeze, Inger, who has claimed both knowledge that
the VM is authentic, and that some currently in progress Danish study will
show the VM to be authentic. (Of course, one more cloud, more or less, on
Inger's veracity is no big deal.) He's been doing this sort of thing for
years. Now he's added a new twist with his so-called "putting me on
ignore." Doing that enables him to choose to ignore posts which blow him
up, like the one in which I posted a link to a site that demolishes his
position about the expression of dates (including C14 dates) in an
archaeological context, while at the same time allowing him to reply to
posts he thinks he can handle (or which require him to generate yet more
squink) by claiming he's "taken me off ignore."
>
> --
> Tom McDonald
> http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Steve