The Vinland Map's Ink
Eric Stevens
to provide an almost insurmountable hurdle for those who argue for the
map's authenticity. From shortly after the time when McCrone announced
his discovery it has been suggested that the presence of anatase may
be due to modern contamination, specifically shedding of chalking
paint from rooms in which the map has been exposed. However, more
recent discoveries as to the distribution of the anatase suggest that
it is more concentrated in the ink than elsewhere and hence
inconsistent with recent random contamination.
In his book 薦rikson, Eskimos & Columbus, Mediaval European knowledge
of America', James Rober Enterline [The John Hopkins University Press
2002, ISBN 0-8018-6660-X] includes an appendix on the subject of the
膳inland Map's Ink'. According to a footnote this includes material
presented by Enterline at the Seventh International Conference on the
History of Cartography, Washington, D.C., and material posted to the
閃aphist' e-mail list on January 9 1997. Not withstanding this, his
ideas do not seem to well known.
While copyright precludes me from quoting the appendix in full, I am
probably not stretching the bounds of fair use by quoting that section
which explains how the VM may have become contaminated with anatase in
the first place.
Begin quote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The major anomaly of the ink is, of course, the titanium white pigment
particles that permeate the ink's binder. Might there be an
explanation other than forgery for how they got into the ink? McCrone
apparently never considered such a possibility. He himself stated that
the pigments do not actually contribute anything to the pale
yellow-brown color of the ink; the color is determined completely by
the binder and/or impurities, and the white pigments seem purposeless.
It is true that experimental titanium pigments of the 19205 did have
impure colors that match this ink binder's color, but that fact could
be a coincidence. The same color match could be obtained with
innumerable other materials available to a forger. The first rule of
good forgery has always been to use authentic materials. A forger
otherwise good enough to have faked a Vinland Map should have obtained
his color from an authentic material like tannin instead of an exotic
titanium dioxide mixture. Therefore, one is moved to investigate the
possibility of another hypothesis. Might it be possible that the map
was originally titanium-free but the ink later became contaminated
somehow with modern anatase titanium dioxide?
Paleographers maintain that sometime in its recent past the document
has been washed or cleaned with a chemical. That hypothesis is
corroborated by the British Museum's microscopical examination of the
parchment's wormholes. The examination focused on the wormhole lining
that bookworms always leave. In this case the lining has apparently
been removed by the action of some chemical agent.6
A traditional way of cleaning documents was by bleaching. Nowadays
conservators would be aghast at the idea of bleaching a parchment
manuscript, but in the 1950s, when the Vinland Map was putatively
still in private hands, it was common to "spruce up" antiquities to
increase their sale value. The fact that the wormholes were patched
shows that the owner held appearance above historical value. The bible
of conservators at that time was the 1937 edition of Plenderleith,
which advocated the same treatment for parchment manuscripts as for
paper: regular household bleaching fluid,* sodium hypochlorite.7
A hypothesis that the map was bleached is consistent with the
appreciable elemental percentage of sodium in the analysis. Traces of
sodium were found in the plain, uninked parchment areas and larger
amounts of sodium were found in the ink itself. Sodium has no function
in any known ink recipe nor, in such quantity, in any white pigments.
Nor can it be accounted for as common salt, sodium chloride (NaC1),
from perspiring fingers. Its ratio to the chlorine in the ink (2: 1
by weight) combined with the fact that chlorine's atom is half again
as heavy as sodium's rules out its occurrence with the formula NaC1.
However, sodium hypochlorite bleach, NaOCl, as it decomposes releases
gaseous chlorine, leaving the sodium free to combine with atmospheric
CO2 and H20 and then to appear in the observed ratio to other
elements.8
Plenderleith described a bleaching method to be used on a document
whose ink was unknown and possibly fugitive.9 The method avoids the
more usual procedure of immersion in bleaching fluid. Instead, a piece
of dry tissue paper is laid on the face of the document. Then one
brushes liquid bleach onto this paper and lets it soak through,
peeling away the tissue before drying occurs. Now, it has been
asserted that an unidentified private family library was the I950s
provenance of the Vinland Map,W and the kind of tissue paper a private
family library would have on hand would be standard typewriter tissue.
Its size would have been just perfect for insertion into this map's
folio as it is bound with the Tartar Relation. However, in the 1940s
and 1950s, some high-grade tissues, particularly onion skins and bible
papers, were opacified with thin white coatings and fillers comprising
exactly the pigments that were found in the ink'
The coating or filler was held to the tissue by a binder of starch or
casein. These are poorly soluble in water but are readily
alkali-soluble. The alkaline pH level of commercial hypochlorite
bleach would soften and loosen the binder of the paper pigments. i2 If
the binder of the map ink were also alkali-soluble, then the viscid,
pigment-laden paper coating would be in intimate contact with the
viscid, pigment free map ink binder. The slightest mechanical
agitation, as from a brush applying the bleach, would mix the pigments
into the ink and even under the edges of the carbon flakes. Transfer
would be enhanced by the washing action of the advancing wet front as
well as by gravity. When the two vehicles were separated and dried,
the particles that entered the ink binder would be retained and others
on the bare parchment perhaps not.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End quote
If Enterline is correct, the presence of anatase in or on the VM is
the expected result of an attempt to bleach the map with the methods
and materials recommended by Plenderleith, the authority of the time.
Further, with our present state of knowledge, the presence of anatase
can only be used as an argument against the authenticity of the VM if
it can be shown that the distribution of the anatase is inconsistent
with the bleaching technique recommended by Plenderleith.
Where we are still woefully lacking in knowledge is the true nature of
the VM map's ink. As far as I know we do not really have much idea of
its composition or whether or not Enterline's suggestion that the
binder of the ink may be alkali-soluble is correct. Until we can
answer at least this question, it seems to me that Enterline's
hypothesis must remain open as a viable explanation for the presence
of anatase in the Vinland Map.
Eric Stevens
rms
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/vinland/about.html
At the end they had the forgery pretty firmly attributed to Enzo Ferrajoli.
They discuss the issue of the ink properties also.
rms
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Hmm - "the forgery".
How did they establish that the map was a forgery? Or did they merely
make that assumption?
If Enterline is correct, the finding of anatase does not establish the
map as a forgery but merely an artifact which has been spruced up in
accordance with the recommended procedures of the day.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:6asg41dqfhkjmq29l...@4ax.com...
> McCrone's discovery of anatase in the ink of the Vinland Map appears
> to provide an almost insurmountable hurdle for those who argue for the
> map's authenticity. From shortly after the time when McCrone announced
> his discovery it has been suggested that the presence of anatase may
> be due to modern contamination, specifically shedding of chalking
> paint from rooms in which the map has been exposed. However, more
> recent discoveries as to the distribution of the anatase suggest that
> it is more concentrated in the ink than elsewhere and hence
> inconsistent with recent random contamination.
>
> of America', James Rober Enterline [The John Hopkins University Press
> 2002, ISBN 0-8018-6660-X] includes an appendix on the subject of the
> presented by Enterline at the Seventh International Conference on the
> History of Cartography, Washington, D.C., and material posted to the
Just a few of problems:
1. "However, in the 1940s and 1950s, some high-grade tissues, particularly
onion skins and bible papers, were opacified with thin white coatings and
fillers comprising exactly the pigments that were found in the ink."
Comprising exactly? That's a non-sequiter if I've ever heard one.
2. "Now, it has been asserted that an unidentified private family library
was the 1950s provenance of the Vinland Map, ..." Asserted by whom? The
person who sold the Vinland Map never provided any provenance for it.
e. "If the binder of the map ink were also alkali-soluble, then the viscid,
pigment-laden paper coating would be in intimate contact with the viscid,
pigment free map ink binder." If this had been the case, why would there be
any ink left on the VM after the treatment? Who in their right mind would
do this to a document without knowing the answer to the "If" premise?
4. "The slightest mechanical agitation, as from a brush applying the
bleach, would mix the pigments into the ink and even under the edges of the
carbon flakes." Why? If the brush applied the bleach to the upper surface
of the tissue (or bible paper), why would the agitation "pass through" the
paper so as to agitate the alleged mixture of dissolved ink binder and
dissolved tissue paper pigment?
5. "Transfer would be enhanced by the washing action of the advancing wet
front as well as by gravity. When the two vehicles were separated and dried,
the particles that entered the ink binder would be retained and others on
the bare parchment perhaps not." Perhaps not? Or perhaps, why not?
Speculation piled upon speculation. Yet the hypothesis is testable.
Perhaps it should be tested.
>
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
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
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> Yet the hypothesis is testable.
> Perhaps it should be tested.
Yes, it is interesting. It seems to me to be more potentially
fruitful than any other of the arguments in favor of the VM's
authenticity.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Tedd Jacobs
"Tom McDonald" wrote...
> Steve Marcus wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Yet the hypothesis is testable. Perhaps it should be tested.
>
> Yes, it is interesting. It seems to me to be more potentially fruitful
> than any other of the arguments in favor of the VM's authenticity.
however, just because the argument exists it can not, and does not, in any
way confirm or deny the documents authenticy or forgery. which should be
noted else someone take the concept and attempt to run with it.
Eric Stevens
<tmcdon...@nohormelcharter.net> wrote:
>Steve Marcus wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Yet the hypothesis is testable.
>> Perhaps it should be tested.
>
> Yes, it is interesting. It seems to me to be more potentially
>fruitful than any other of the arguments in favor of the VM's
>authenticity.
Enterline has already tested it. There is no reason why it should not
be repeatable.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
--- snip ----
I have just had it drawn to my attention that Hu McCullough has
already briefly mentioned this in his web page at
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/vinland/vinland.htm#enterline
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Tom,
That applies equally well to ANY hypothesis to do with the VM.
A valid question is, which is more likely: did a forger attempt fake a
medieval document using methods which cannot be shown to bear any
resemblance to medieval inks or did an avaricious book dealer attempt
to flossie up his ill-gotten book using the recommended bleaching
techniques of the day?
I have to say I find it hard to come down on the side the forger.
Frankly, I don't yet know which side to come down on but Enterline's
hypothesis does seem to offer a plausible explanation of much that is
presently puzzling us.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 22:04:59 -0700, "Tedd Jacobs"
> <Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Tom McDonald" wrote...
>>> Steve Marcus wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Yet the hypothesis is testable. Perhaps it should be tested.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is interesting. It seems to me to be more potentially fruitful
>>> than any other of the arguments in favor of the VM's authenticity.
>>
>>however, just because the argument exists it can not, and does not, in any
>>way confirm or deny the documents authenticy or forgery. which should be
>>noted else someone take the concept and attempt to run with it.
>>
>>
> Tom,
>
> That applies equally well to ANY hypothesis to do with the VM.
>
> A valid question is, which is more likely: did a forger attempt fake a
> medieval document using methods which cannot be shown to bear any
> resemblance to medieval inks or did an avaricious book dealer attempt
> to flossie up his ill-gotten book using the recommended bleaching
> techniques of the day?
Wrong question, or at least, wrong sequence of questions. The important
question, per Occam's razor, is did a 14th century scribe decide to use an
ink other than the typical iron gall ink that was in widespread use, and if
so, why?
As to a forger "using methods which cannot be shown to bear any resemblance
to medieval inks", the technique used on the Vinland Map makes perfect sense
if one were trying to achieve "the look" that a 14th century document
bearing iron gall ink would have without waiting a few hundred years for the
ink to "burn into" the parchment and discolor the parchment.
As to the avaricious book dealer, I don't think that someone trying to pass
of this type of document would have tried to "flossie up" his wares. It
would make more sense for a private owner to do something like this, but
only if the private owner wanted to risk damaging the document.
>
> I have to say I find it hard to come down on the side the forger.
> Frankly, I don't yet know which side to come down on but Enterline's
> hypothesis does seem to offer a plausible explanation of much that is
> presently puzzling us.
And here we come to the fundamental problem one encounters with you.
First of all of, there's matters of cartography and, language (in the VMs
inscriptions) that support the hypothesis that the VM is not authentic.But
let's leave those matters aside.
On the one hand, you have an entire context for the Vinland Map's 20th
century history. A book dealer of highly questionable reputation approaches
someone with the Map, and cannot supply any provenance at all. He later
surfaces again with the Tartar Relation, and it appears that the VM was
originally bound therewith. Yet the inks are entirely different, and
testing raises issues with the VM, but not with TR. It appears that the VM
inking has been done with a sort of ink that has virtually no precedent (I'm
speaking of the yellow underlayer covered with the black pigmented upper
layer); whether the VM ink is one ink that separated into two layers or two
supperposed layers, the effect is to simulate the effect that is a result of
using conventional iron gall inks (as on the TR), but which takes centuries
to happen. While the matter of the ink was raised relatively early on
(questions regarding fluourescence, IIRC), the more definitive testing of
the sort undertaken by McCrone and Brown/Clark was unheard when the VM was
first shopped around by that book dealer.
Alternatively, you have a completely untested hypothesis that depends upon
speculation piled on speculation. Even as you quote it, there's not a
single mention of titanium; there's a vague reference to "onion skins and
bible papers, [were] opacified with thin white coatings and fillers
comprising exactly the pigments that were found in the ink." And given the
above, of course, *you* "find it hard to come down on the side of" the first
hypothesis. As was noted by another poster, even assuming that the
speculative hypothesis put forth by Enterline is shown by testing to be
possible, it per se would demonstrate that the VM *could be* authentic, and
not that it *is" authentic*.
I think that Enterline's hypothesis should be tested. But as far as it
being hard to assess matters as they currently stand and "come down on the
side of the forger", methinks that your bias is showing.
Steve Marcus
Really? He's formulated an ink that is not an iron gall ink, and will
separate into two distinct layers, applied it to 14th century parchment
similar in kind to that upon which the VM is drawn, obtained a tissue or
bible paper with precisely the same (as to type and particle size) titanium
dioxide (anatase) that appearson the VM, and used sodium hypochlorite to
"clean" the inked parchment, then run it through test equipment of the sort
used by McCrone or by Brown/Clark and his results match the results obtained
by McCrone and Brown/Clark?? Gee, why haven't we heard about those tests
and the results? Never mind us, why hasn't the world heard of this?
Alaca
> [...]
> As to a forger "using methods which cannot be shown to bear any
> resemblance to medieval inks", the technique used on the Vinland Map
> makes perfect sense if one were trying to achieve "the look" that a
> 14th century document bearing iron gall ink would have without
> waiting a few hundred years for the ink to "burn into" the parchment
> and discolor the parchment.
> [...]
> It appears that the VM inking has been done with a sort of
> ink that has virtually no precedent (I'm speaking of the yellow
> underlayer covered with the black pigmented upper layer); whether the
> VM ink is one ink that separated into two layers or two supperposed
> layers, the effect is to simulate the effect that is a result of
> using conventional iron gall inks (as on the TR), but which takes
> centuries to happen.
> [...]
This contradiction puzzles me for some time now.
If the forger applied a yellow underline to simulate
the burning effect of iron gall ink, there is no obvious
reason for not using an old type of ink for the top lines.
I think the most stupid thing a forger can do is using
modern material.
--
- Peter Alaca -
David B
>
>This contradiction puzzles me for some time now.
>If the forger applied a yellow underline to simulate
>the burning effect of iron gall ink, there is no obvious
>reason for not using an old type of ink for the top lines.
>I think the most stupid thing a forger can do is using
>modern material.
That's sort of the wrong way round: the top (black) lines are basically
soot; the "modern material" (anatase) appears in the underlying yellow
lines. The question is, was it a stupid thing to do in the 1950s when
analytical methods were so much less sophisticated?
David B
David B
Eric Stevens wrote in message
<6asg41dqfhkjmq29l...@4ax.com>...
>
>In his book 薦rikson, Eskimos & Columbus, Mediaval European knowledge
>of America', James Rober Enterline [The John Hopkins University Press
>2002, ISBN 0-8018-6660-X] includes an appendix on the subject of the
>膳inland Map's Ink'. According to a footnote this includes material
>presented by Enterline at the Seventh International Conference on the
>History of Cartography, Washington, D.C., and material posted to the
>閃aphist' e-mail list on January 9 1997. Not withstanding this, his
>ideas do not seem to well known.
>As far as I know we do not really have much idea of
>its composition or whether or not Enterline's suggestion that the
>binder of the ink may be alkali-soluble is correct. Until we can
>answer at least this question, it seems to me that Enterline's
>hypothesis must remain open as a viable explanation for the presence
>of anatase in the Vinland Map.
I mentioned Enterline's experiment in my original booklet about the Vinland
Map, but Ken Towe subsequently informed me of a discussion between himself
and Enterline, following Jacqueline Olin's pro-VM efforts at the end of
2003, and the revised pdf version of my text indicates that Enterline was,
by 2004, considering a significantly modified experiment. However, I did
not give full details of the problems with Enterline's theory, because one
of the aims of my booklet was to get away from the fixation with ink
chemistry and demonstrate that there is plenty of other evidence against
the authenticity of the VM. Still, as the issue has now been raised, here
are some "finer points" for your consideration:
a) Comparing the Cahill team's PIXE analysis of the VM lines with the
Brown/Clark Raman analysis, it becomes apparent that while, by PIXE which
penetrates right through the material to be analysed, some of the highest
concentrations of titanium are to be found in sections of line with the
most black pigment (notably in the outline of Vinland itself); by Raman
spectroscopy which analyses only the surface, the anatase signal is
weakened in those same areas. This implies that the anatase is right
underneath the black pigment. Enterline acknowledged that his original
experiment, long before the Raman testing, did not address the issue of
whether his bleaching transfer mechanism could achieve this remarkable
effect.
b) Enterline's experiment was done on paper, not parchment. Towe pointed
out that the collagen in parchment, unlike the cellulose in paper, would
itself be softened by the bleaching process, so one would expect more
adhesion of contaminants from the tissue overlay if the experiment were
repeated with parchment.
c) Enterline suggested that his pure tannin ink gradually acquired a yellow
colour by absorbing iron from the atmosphere- but if that were the case
with the VM ink, then more significant quantitities of iron should have
been detected by the three sets of chemical analyses.
The results of Jim Enterline's revised experiments are still awaited.
Anybody else have access to similar facilities?
David B.
Alaca
> Alaca wrote in message <4249414e$0$797$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl>...
>>
>> This contradiction puzzles me for some time now.
>> If the forger applied a yellow underline to simulate
>> the burning effect of iron gall ink, there is no obvious
>> reason for not using an old type of ink for the top lines.
>> I think the most stupid thing a forger can do is using
>> modern material.
>
> That's sort of the wrong way round: the top (black) lines are
> basically soot; the "modern material" (anatase) appears in the
> underlying yellow lines.
OK, my use of the words 'old type' suggests 'modern', but still:
why suggesting the effects of, but not using iron gall ink?
"" Boil 12 parts distilled water. Add 3 parts ground oak galls.
After 15 minutes, add 2 parts of ferrous sulphate.
Pour through a filter. Separately, add a small portion of the
liquid to 1 part gum arabic. Make sure the gum arabic
dissolves completely. Add this to remaining liquid. Place in
bottle for storage until used. Add egg shells to neutralize the
pH of the ink.""
> The question is, was it a stupid thing to do in the 1950s when
> analytical methods were so much less sophisticated?
I guess you are right, even today ....
David B.
>
>why suggesting the effects of, but not using iron gall ink?
Fun?
>David B. wrote:
>
>> The question is, was it a stupid thing to do in the 1950s when
>> analytical methods were so much less sophisticated?
>
>I guess you are right, even today ....
Loads of fun!
David B.
PS: In case anybody's still wondering- I don't think the Vinland Map was
forged by the book dealer Ferrajoli (or by anybody else who had anything to
lose by its exposure- it's just not cautious enough) though I'm pretty sure
he knew or at least assumed that it was a fake.
Eric Stevens
Enterline's comment on the ink is:
Begin quote
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
McCrone's forgery scenario noted several other anomalous features. He
described the pale, yellow-brown binder of the ink as "different from
that of any other known medieval ink."[2] This fact by itself is not
necessarily indicative of forgery. Medieval scribes mixed their own
ink from privately or even secretly distributed recipes that had
evolved by trial and error. A widely used ink was iron-gall ink,
essentially tannic acid and iron sulphate. This had the strange
property of being quite pale upon application and not turning fully
black until after several days of oxidation. However, some scribes
experimented with novel inks and even distributed recipes that were
incorrect. One comparatively frequent error was to omit the
iron-bearing component in iron-gall ink.[3] This omission could result
from haste or negligence as well as from an incorrect recipe.
In fact, the Yale Vinland Map's ink does exhibit an extremely low iron
content.[4] I have conducted a simple experiment in imitation of the
omission of iron from an ink. I applied pure tannin to paper and let
it age for several months. The result seems strikingly similar
visually to the pale yellow-brown binder of the Vinland Map. After the
initial yellowing, its color remained static. This suggests that that
binder may simply be gall extracts without iron salts. In the more
than twenty years since I first made this suggestion, none of the
principals in this controversy has suggested a test of the Vinland
Map's ink to prove or disprove such a conjecture.
McCrone's forgery hypothesis is based on a second anomaly, in addition
to the presence of the titanium dioxide pigments in the ink, namely,
that there are microscopic flakes of a black carbon ink layer that
once overlaid this presently exposed pale yellow-brown ink. He
interprets this as a deliberate, painstaking attempt to simulate aged
ink[5] The shortcoming of this hypothesis is that it requires that a
modern forger go to rather extreme lengths and yet amateurishly end up
with a demonstrably anomalous layering. A different explanation could
be that this black layer, which is now almost completely flaked away,
it merely the remains of an imperfect restoration attempt sometime
during the intervening centuries. It could even have resulted from a
retracing by the original scribe after he realized that his original
ink was not turning black. This case would account for the accuracy
with which the restorer was able to overlay the original, because both
would have been in the same hand. If his job depended on delivering a
useable product, he would have had sufficient motivation to do the
painstaking work.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End quote
The relevant references are:
2. Ibid., 212.
3. David Nunes Carvaiho, Forty Centuries of Ink (New York: Banks
Law Publishing,
1904), chap. 8, 163-64, 166-67, chap. 21; Wilhelm Wattenbach, Das
Schriftwesen im Mittelalter (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1896), 239-40.
4. Wallis et al., "Strange Case," 213.
Ibid., 210, 214.
The Vinland Map is not the primary subject of Enterline's book but it
does fit into his general discussion in a number of places. I can't
keep quoting selected parts of the book to deal with points as they
are raised but I would suggest that the book is worth reading.
Enterline does not argue that the VM is genuine but that the case for
it being false is by no means made. He also says that, contrary to the
views of many, the VM is not inconsistent with the emerging mapping
traditions of the time.
Enterline's views are different,and therefore contentious, but in my
opinion he makes a good first case for a new hypothesis which is
worthy of closer examination.
Eric Stevens
Matti E Simonaho
David B.
he knew or at least assumed that it was a fake.[/quote:dbea7a0933]
Adam of Bremen (also: Adam Bremensis) was one of the most important
German medieval chroniclers. He lived and worked in the second half
of the 11th century. He is most famous for his chronicle Gesta
Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum (Deeds of Bishops of the Hamburg
Church). The dates of his birth and death are uncertain, but he was
probably born before 1050 and died on October 12 of on unknown year
(Possibly 1081, latest 1085).
In Adam von Bremen's "Descriptio insularum Aquilonis" -book he mention
Winland: " Praeterea unam adhuc insulam recitavit a multis in eo
repertam occeano, quae dicitur Winland, eo quod ibi vites sponte
nascantur, vinum optimum ferentes " so the Vinland map must have
being made prior 1085.
Posted at: http://www.groupsrv.com
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Steve Marcus
"Alaca" <P.A...@is.fake> wrote in message
news:4249414e$0$797$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
The point is that if even a19th forger had used iron gall ink to create the
Vinland Map, the appearance of the document would be unlike that of a real
15th century document created with iron gall ink.
BTW, I've been confusing 14th and 15th century; that's what happens when
posting at 5:00 AM. The VM is purported to be a document created circa
1440, making it a purported 15th century document.
>
> --
> - Peter Alaca -
>
Doug McDonald
Since the parchment of the Vinland Map can be dated
to the 15th century only after removal of "something"
of very recent vintage with acetone, a critical test
is to show what that something is, and how it could have been
added after the map was drawn, without damaging the lines
more than they actually are. Furthermore, for the map to be
real, at least some components of the ink must be "underneath"
the late addition, and any components "above" the late addition
much be reasonable as late additions.
Doug McDonald
Steve Marcus
One problem with the material quoted above: "I have conducted a simple
experiment in imitation of the omission of iron from an ink. I applied pure
tannin to paper and let it age for several months. The result seems
strikingly similar visually to the pale yellow-brown binder of the Vinland
Map. After the initial yellowing, its color remained static. This suggests
that that binder may simply be gall extracts without iron salts. In the more
than twenty years since I first made this suggestion, none of the
principals in this controversy has suggested a test of the Vinland Map's ink
to prove or disprove such a conjecture."
First, it was the iron that would have made a black pigment. Why is there
black pigment in the "ink" on the VM?? Iron gall ink was made thusly,
according to:
"To make iron-gall ink, galls from oak trees were crushed to obtain
gallotannic acid. The gallotanic acid was mixed with water. As seen in
Figure 1 (SM: which I've omitted here), the water breaks the ester links of
the gallotannic acid, forming gallic acid (Sjostrom 101). The gallic acid
was then mixed with water and vitriol (iron (II) sulfate). Gum arabic from
acacia trees was added as the suspension agent (Eusman 1). The result was
iron-gall ink."
See also:
http://www.knaw.nl/ecpa/ink/make_ink.html
wherein it is explained that: "Iron gall ink is essentially created by the
chemical reaction between tannic acid and iron(II) sulfate in an aqueous
solution. The primary active components in tannin are gallotannic and gallic
acid. **With iron(II) sulfate, these tannic acids produce a black pigment,
called ferrogallotannate or ferrotannate, upon exposure to oxygen.** A small
amount of pigment forms by reacting with oxygen in the water, but much more
pigment is produced after the ink has been applied to paper and exposed to
air for several days. (Emphasis supplied.)
Nary a mention of carbon or any other "black pigment"; it was unnecessary in
that the ink created its own pigment.
Secondly, the unsatisfactory result obtained by omitting the iron, either on
purpose or by accident would have been immediately detected by the
manufacturer of the ink (no color to the ink, or at best, a very, very weak
color). So would the scribe have even started writing with such ink? And
if so, would the scribe have continued writing while the ink failed to
darken (knowing, of course, that this was occurring due to the omission of
the iron bearing component of iron gall ink)? Doubtful, and therefore, the
first alternative hypothesis (that the black pigment resulted from a
restoration attempt) fails to impress since it requires a scribe to have
first created the entire "authentic" VM with defective ink).
It seems to me that the second alternative hypothesis, that the scribe drew
the whole map using defective ink, and the use of the black particles for
pigment "could even have resulted from a retracing by the original scribe
after he realized that his original ink was not turning black." is even
weaker. What's interesting, however, that Enterline basis this second
hypothesis on the ability of the scribe to trace a black pigmented material
over the first set of "defective" lines because the same scribe would do the
tracing. VM proponents have claimed that it is impossible to do that kind
of tracing, and that the VM must, perforce, be authentic.
Robert Stonehouse
<P.A...@is.fake> wrote:
>David B wrote: e6c2e.616$wY5...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net,
>> Alaca wrote in message <4249414e$0$797$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl>...
>>> This contradiction puzzles me for some time now.
>>> If the forger applied a yellow underline to simulate
>>> the burning effect of iron gall ink, there is no obvious
>>> reason for not using an old type of ink for the top lines.
>>> I think the most stupid thing a forger can do is using
>>> modern material.
>>
>> That's sort of the wrong way round: the top (black) lines are
>> basically soot; the "modern material" (anatase) appears in the
>> underlying yellow lines.
>
>OK, my use of the words 'old type' suggests 'modern', but still:
>why suggesting the effects of, but not using iron gall ink?
>
> "" Boil 12 parts distilled water. Add 3 parts ground oak galls.
> After 15 minutes, add 2 parts of ferrous sulphate.
> Pour through a filter. Separately, add a small portion of the
> liquid to 1 part gum arabic. Make sure the gum arabic
> dissolves completely. Add this to remaining liquid. Place in
> bottle for storage until used. Add egg shells to neutralize the
> pH of the ink.""
How long does it take for iron-gall ink to burn into
parchment and produce the yellow effect round the black
lines? Maybe the forger had not enough time for that to
happen and so he had to simulate it.
There are other features of the map that are easier to
explain as the deliberate work of a forger than in any other
way. The copying errors Apusia and Tatartata must have been
obviously wrong to the person who made them, but they
provide links to the Tartar Relation. So do the over-perfect
wormholes which (we are asked to believe) were eaten by
worms in exact formation through over 70 parchment pages now
lost.
Once is happenstance ...
I.E_Johansson
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
news:i5fj411mlldc2koiu...@4ax.com...
Problem with that assumption is that you have to prove that there are two
lines and not one origin line being devided in two by age,
and you would still have an inconclusive answer to the map's age.
Second problem is that there was a map copied in 1400's. If that map and VM
is one and the same your assumption falls anyhow since it's hard to prove
that a person back then didn't use - which often was the case no matter what
else you put forward - an outline using light color(which had 'correct'
pigment in it) before the ink was used.
Inger E
Alan Crozier
message news:4249c9ea$1...@127.0.0.1...
By the same logic you must have posted this message about Vinland before
1085.
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Alaca
> "Alaca" wrote:
>> David B wrote:
>>> Alaca wrote
..
>>>> This contradiction puzzles me for some time now.
>>>> If the forger applied a yellow underline to simulate
>>>> the burning effect of iron gall ink, there is no obvious
>>>> reason for not using an old type of ink for the top lines.
>>>> I think the most stupid thing a forger can do is using
>>>> modern material.
>>>
>>> That's sort of the wrong way round: the top (black) lines are
>>> basically soot; the "modern material" (anatase) appears in the
>>> underlying yellow lines.
>>
>> OK, my use of the words 'old type' suggests 'modern', but still:
>> why suggesting the effects of, but not using iron gall ink?
>>
>> "" Boil 12 parts distilled water. Add 3 parts ground oak galls.
>> After 15 minutes, add 2 parts of ferrous sulphate.
>> Pour through a filter. Separately, add a small portion of the
>> liquid to 1 part gum arabic. Make sure the gum arabic
>> dissolves completely. Add this to remaining liquid. Place in
>> bottle for storage until used. Add egg shells to neutralize the
>> pH of the ink.""
>
> How long does it take for iron-gall ink to burn into
> parchment and produce the yellow effect round the black
> lines? Maybe the forger had not enough time for that to
> happen and so he had to simulate it.
A suggestion is that the map was first drawn with a
(modern?) yellow paint to suggest aging of iron gall ink.
My question was why for the final black line a soot
containing ink was used and not an iron gall ink.
> There are other features of the map that are easier to
> explain as the deliberate work of a forger than in any other
> way. The copying errors Apusia and Tatartata must have been
> obviously wrong to the person who made them, but they
> provide links to the Tartar Relation. So do the over-perfect
> wormholes which (we are asked to believe) were eaten by
> worms in exact formation through over 70 parchment pages now
> lost.
>
> Once is happenstance ...
>>
>>> The question is, was it a stupid thing to do in the 1950s when
>>> analytical methods were so much less sophisticated?
>>
>> I guess you are right, even today ....
--
- Peter Alaca -
Alaca
> "Eric Stevens" wrote..
>> , "Alaca" wrote:
>> [...]
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> End quote
>> [...]
This is indeen a unlikely scenario.
Here some relevant quotes:
"" Oak gall ink takes time to reach its optimum state.
Over the course of six months, this ink will gradually
darken. It continues to darken after applied to vellum
or paper, and may appear faint when first applied. ""
http://tinyurl.com/5lqw3 (manuscriptarts.net)
"" Problem: Ink is too pale (Make sure to let the ink
oxidize after use to judge the full color
Cause: Too little iron sulfate
Solution: Add aditional iron sulfate (may reduce
the stablitiy of the ink) OR add dye or lampblack
pigment .""
http://www.knaw.nl/ecpa/ink/make_ink_chart.html
The question here is: was it perhaps customary to
add black to the ink for better visiblity when used?
> What's interesting,
> however, that Enterline basis this second hypothesis on the ability
> of the scribe to trace a black pigmented material over the first set
> of "defective" lines because the same scribe would do the tracing. VM
> proponents have claimed that it is impossible to do that kind of
> tracing, and that the VM must, perforce, be authentic.
But why is it impossible to redraw a map? Every artist,
technical draughtsman or carthographer is tracing all
the time. Putting pencil or chalk drawings in ink, or
engraving and enhancing plates. I am doing it all the
time, even digitaly.
Especially for lettering the same hand is a pre, but not
neccecary.
Very good on the subject is:
*The ink corrosion website*
http://www.knaw.nl/ecpa/ink/index.htm
David B
>
>The question here is: was it perhaps customary to
>add black to the ink for better visiblity when used?
Yes- soot was sometimes added. Enterline now, I understand, favours this
hypothesis over the "re-drawing" idea.
David B.
David B
>
>A suggestion is that the map was first drawn with a
>(modern?) yellow paint to suggest aging of iron gall ink.
>My question was why for the final black line a soot
>containing ink was used and not an iron gall ink.
I have noted in my other message sent about the same time as this that soot
was sometimes added to genuine iron-gall ink to make it more legible for
the writer, but if the VM really was drawn shortly before it came on the
market in 1957, there is another possibility- that the whole map is
designed to fool the then-new technique of carbon dating (brought to wide
attention in a 1952 book) and that the soot in the ink was made by burning
pages from the now-incomplete "Speculum Historiale" manuscript which was
originally bound with the "Tartar Relation".
Unfortunately, even with modern improvements, a lot of ink would have to be
destroyed for carbon-dating to test this hypothesis!
David B.
Matti E Simonaho
the most important German medieval chroniclers. He lived and worked
in the second half of the 11th century. He is most famous for his
chronicle Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum (Deeds of Bishops
of the Hamburg Church). The dates of his birth and death are
uncertain, but he was probably born before 1050 and died on October
12 of on unknown year (Possibly 1081, latest 1085).
In Adam von Bremen's "Descriptio insularum Aquilonis" -book he mention
Winland: " Praeterea unam adhuc insulam recitavit a multis in eo
repertam occeano, quae dicitur Winland, eo quod ibi vites sponte
nascantur, vinum optimum ferentes " so the Vinland map must have
being made prior 1085. "
Alan Crozier: "By the same logic you must have posted this message
about Vinland before 1085."
That answer pictures very well the logic of the Swedish scholars from
the time of Olof Rudbeck and Petrus Bång to 2005. It's funny how many
things in the Viking Age Theory by Olof Rudbeck among many others do
not mach the known history. Nor does it in many cases match any logic
at all, like the rune stones, writing and alphabet.
Do you know that the name "run" is "er.va.en" and riimu (finnish) is
"er.ii.em.va" and both is ancient finnish for "different" ?
So "riimu.aakko.set" is ancient Finnish for "tells different history".
But what does "run.skrift" (swedish) mean?
"ervaen eske erii vate" is ancient finnish for "you are using
different type of carving/cut/writing" ("different" from the
roman/latin alphabet).
Few words compared to Finnish of today:
"aekekeoe" is today "aekkoe" (Savo dialect) = time/history
"esiite" is today "esittää (esittaeae) = show/display
"ervaen" is today "eroava" = different (type of)
"eske" is "iskeä (iskeae)" = cut/carv in this case
So, with this method I can easily can check the writing of the
Kensington stone and simply proof it to be real, or proof it as a
fake.
Robert Stonehouse
It wasn't an assumption, it was a question. How long does it
take? The point was to show there could be an entirely
reasonable explanation for the use of two materials to
suggest the effect of time (centuries?) on one.
I also mentioned some other places where the most natural
explanation of an oddity was that it was put there by a
forger, for purposes that made sense in a context of
forgery.
Your points, I think, are:
1. There is only one line and not two. Is that tenable in
view of the chemical analysis?
2. If there are two, that does not fix the age of the map.
Well, it fixes the age of the lines to not before the 20th
century.
3. A map was copied in the 1400s, although we do not know
that it was this one. We need to know that, or at least have
some reason to believe it, before this amounts to an
argument.
4. Possibly it was conventional in the 1400s to draw a
yellow line so as to draw the black one on top of it. Well,
possibly, but it would be an odd procedure. Is any certain
example known? Why should anyone do it? Because they wanted
to imitate the appearance their drawing would normally
attain after the deterioration of several centuries? A kind
of forgery in advance. This seems improbable and not
warranted by any evidence.
I.E_Johansson
"Robert Stonehouse" <ew...@bcs.org.invalid> skrev i meddelandet
I think it's better that I forward this specific question to a friend of
mine who has better knowledge of the present discussion after Danish
scholars studied and analysed the map. Is that ok? If so I ask my friend to
send you a direct mail if you want. Do you?
>
> 2. If there are two, that does not fix the age of the map.
> Well, it fixes the age of the lines to not before the 20th
> century.
No that's not so. Especially not when we discuss some Scandinavian related
documents on parchment where the text has a colored part around the first
letter. I can return in this question if you want me to. At present I am
working with the documents from 1420-1434 that caused the need for a map to
be presented at the Basel convent, but a map which excluded part of what was
on Nicholas of Thingeyre's map. I am digging deep for a 1448 copy of the map
copied from Nicholas of Thingeyre's map.
That one is even more interesting than the Vinland map copy of 1430's. I
have located it's where-abouts today and will be sending a specific request
for a photo of it if possible. That might take some time of course, but
usually it will be in within two weeks.
>
> 3. A map was copied in the 1400s, although we do not know
> that it was this one. We need to know that, or at least have
> some reason to believe it, before this amounts to an
> argument.
That is what I am putting forward the background information needed for in
Greenland, Vinland and the Vinland map. I have a copy of one of the two maps
copied directly from Nicholas of Thingeyre's map. That's not the problem for
me not to have sent part 4, but in a long line of diplomas, Swedish,
Norwegian and Danish I found a ref to a copy from 1448 which seems if those
in second half 1400's were right, to be a copy from the 1430's copy. I know
why it looks like it does. And what might be more interesting in the long
run, I have some specific information which I will not include in my
newsgroup article but if you want me to you can have it after 6th April when
I delivered it to the editor for the first reading.
>
> 4. Possibly it was conventional in the 1400s to draw a
> yellow line so as to draw the black one on top of it. Well,
> possibly, but it would be an odd procedure. Is any certain
> example known? Why should anyone do it?
Most of that type is done in monestries where there are more complicated
drawings within books side by side of text.
Because they wanted
> to imitate the appearance their drawing would normally
> attain after the deterioration of several centuries? A kind
> of forgery in advance. This seems improbable and not
> warranted by any evidence.
Your assumption. I don't agree, but can we take that part later on. I am out
on net looking for a specific document from 1440's which lately been made
available on net. I am also looking around for scholars, or others, who
might have refered to it, when and where.
Inger E
Eric Stevens
<ew...@bcs.org.invalid> wrote:
--- snip ---
>>Problem with that assumption is that you have to prove that there are two
>>lines and not one origin line being devided in two by age,
>>and you would still have an inconclusive answer to the map's age.
>>Second problem is that there was a map copied in 1400's. If that map and VM
>>is one and the same your assumption falls anyhow since it's hard to prove
>>that a person back then didn't use - which often was the case no matter what
>>else you put forward - an outline using light color(which had 'correct'
>>pigment in it) before the ink was used.
>
>It wasn't an assumption, it was a question. How long does it
>take? The point was to show there could be an entirely
>reasonable explanation for the use of two materials to
>suggest the effect of time (centuries?) on one.
>
>I also mentioned some other places where the most natural
>explanation of an oddity was that it was put there by a
>forger, for purposes that made sense in a context of
>forgery.
>
>Your points, I think, are:
>1. There is only one line and not two. Is that tenable in
>view of the chemical analysis?
>
>2. If there are two, that does not fix the age of the map.
>Well, it fixes the age of the lines to not before the 20th
>century.
That is not correct, if Enterline's hypothesis can be substantiated.
>
>3. A map was copied in the 1400s, although we do not know
>that it was this one. We need to know that, or at least have
>some reason to believe it, before this amounts to an
>argument.
>
>4. Possibly it was conventional in the 1400s to draw a
>yellow line so as to draw the black one on top of it. Well,
>possibly, but it would be an odd procedure. Is any certain
>example known? Why should anyone do it? Because they wanted
>to imitate the appearance their drawing would normally
>attain after the deterioration of several centuries? A kind
>of forgery in advance. This seems improbable and not
>warranted by any evidence.
Eric Stevens
David Johnson
@news.wanadoo.nl:
Simplest answer I can think of is that the forger didn't have access to
any galls. I mean, it's not like you can go down to "Galls 'R' Us" and
pick some up.
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
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:o62m41pl2orkppcbf...@4ax.com...
Which one? The Eskimo/Inuit presumed carthographic information re. Baffin
Island?
Well we have good maps older than that,
Nicholas of Thingeyre's map is only one of them.
Or what is it you call Enterline's hypothesis here?
Inger E
george
Because they (the forgers) were not aware of the mechanics behind what
they could observe in old documents where the iron gall ink 'rusts' out
into the surrounding material..
Alaca
Xns96297EBCDF...@213.155.197.138,
> "Alaca" wrote in:
>>
>> A suggestion is that the map was first drawn with a
>> (modern?) yellow paint to suggest aging of iron gall ink.
>> My question was why for the final black line a soot
>> containing ink was used and not an iron gall ink.
>
> Simplest answer I can think of is that the forger didn't have
> access
> to any galls. I mean, it's not like you can go down to "Galls
> 'R' Us"
> and pick some up.
Then is was a very incompetent forger, because gall nuts
are easy to find. Oaks are very rich in different species.
Only the quality depends on the season. And galls are not
the only possible source.
And according to The ink corrosion website:
"" It is surprisingly easy to make iron gall ink
- the earliest recipes are often the simplest -
and the ingredients are inexpensive and
readily available. ""
http://www.knaw.nl/ecpa/ink/ink_booke.html
Eric Stevens
In that case they were rather dumb! The chemistry of that has been
known for a long time.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
I was referring to Enterline's theory that anatase was transferred
into the ink on the map during a modern bleaching process. If he is
correct, the presence of anatase does not automatically make the map a
20th century creation.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
All you need is access to a few oak or similar gall-bearing trees. See
http://www.knaw.nl/ecpa/ink/make_ink.html
" Tannic acid is contained in the galls, bark, leaves, roots and
fruits of various plants. The greatest concentration of
gallotannic acid is found in galls; the bulbous growths formed
on the leaves and twigs of trees in response to attack by
parasites. Galls are collected from oak, oak-apple and pistachio
trees. Depending on the source, they can be amorphous in
shape (Japanese and Chinese galls); large, smooth and
globular (British and American oak galls); or small, round and
spiky (Aleppo galls). Aleppo galls, collected from trees native
to Turkey, contain the highest amount of gallotannate, and were
used in trial preparations of the inks described below. A lower
proportion of gallotannic acid may be extracted from the bark of
various trees, including oak, chestnut, mountain ash and cherry.
I found a comment which interested me in
http://www.realscience.breckschool.org/upper/fruen/files/Enrichmentarticles/files/IronGallInk/IronGallInk.html
"Iron-gall ink was very useful because it did not rub off
documents. Unlike paper, parchment was not absorbent, so
carbon-based ink easily rubbed away."
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
"Alaca" <P.A...@is.fake> wrote in message
I know that. And on the recent television program re the VM, there was
actually some footage of someone (obviously a competent draftsman) inking
over a pre-drawn line. My point was that the "impossibility" of doing that
sort of re-inking has been argued by those pre-disposed to find that the VM
is authentic. Included in that number is one of the folks now posting in
this thread, and I'm not talking about Inger E. Johansson.
>
> Very good on the subject is:
>
> *The ink corrosion website*
> http://www.knaw.nl/ecpa/ink/index.htm
>
>
> --
> - Peter Alaca -
>
Steve
george
Steve Marcus
"David B" <tronos...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:Aux2e.491$ua5...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Yes, I understand that that one can correct for an iron gall ink being "too
light" by adding a dye or lampblack. The question is whether someone doing
a work such as the VM would simply not have added more "iron" to the ink if
it were too light. Generally, iron gall ink made properly was dark enough
even when applied; and of course would darken more thereafter. The idea
that a scribe doing a work such as the VM would add a dye or lampblack to
the ink, rather than darkening it with additional gall or tannin, strikes me
as being far-fetched (but not much moreso than the idea that a scribe
undertaking the VM would "forget" to add gall or make a mistake in preparing
his/her ink in the first place.
Of course, anything is possible. :)
>
>
> David B.
Eric Stevens
Nobody yet has shown it to be a forgery in that nobody can yet say how
it was forged. All they can do is cast doubts on it's authenticity.
I can only say that someone sufficiently skilled to do all the
necessary fancy footwork with the various pages of the original
document while lacking even rudimentary knowledge of mediaeval inks
reflects very badly on his upbringing as a forger. Why go all the
trouble to try and get the paper right when you don't even know enough
to even start to deal with the ink? It all makes for a most improbable
forger.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>> But why is it impossible to redraw a map? Every artist,
>> technical draughtsman or carthographer is tracing all
>> the time. Putting pencil or chalk drawings in ink, or
>> engraving and enhancing plates. I am doing it all the
>> time, even digitaly.
>> Especially for lettering the same hand is a pre, but not
>> neccecary.
>
>I know that. And on the recent television program re the VM, there was
>actually some footage of someone (obviously a competent draftsman) inking
>over a pre-drawn line. My point was that the "impossibility" of doing that
>sort of re-inking has been argued by those pre-disposed to find that the VM
>is authentic. Included in that number is one of the folks now posting in
>this thread, and I'm not talking about Inger E. Johansson.
The question is not whether or not a draftsman can reink over an
existing line but whether or not they can do it indetectably.
There are conflicting opinions about this:
1. such indetectable reinking is impossible (ex FBI document
examiner).
2. close scrutiny fails to reveal any evidence of reinking (a commonly
voiced opinion)
3. reinking can be clearly seen in the coast of Great Britain and
Ireland (I forget who made that claim. David M might know).
My personal view is that getting the pen strokes in the reinking to
perfectly match the pen strokes in the underinking is a virtually
impossible task. Even the most skilled draftsman would fail to
perfectly match the underinking and could be expected to get away with
it only if the vast majority of the overinking had fallen off.
Eric Stevens
Tom McDonald
I think that's one reason some folks, including Seaver,
considered that the forger's (assuming for argument's sake that
it is a forgery) motive included being just good enough to
convince those who wanted to be convinced, while being just
hinky enough to get skeptics to blow the whistle on it.
It could be that the notional forger did the best job s/he
could, and it wasn't bulletproof. Or, of course, it could be
that the thing is authentic, and later activity added and
changed the character of the map such that the questions about
its authenticity became reasonable.
It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, the Danish
investigation turns up.
--
Tom McDonald
http://ahwhatdoiknow.blogspot.com/
Tedd Jacobs
"Eric Stevens" wrote...
> Nobody yet has shown it to be a forgery in that nobody can yet say how
> it was forged. All they can do is cast doubts on it's authenticity.
nobody yet has shown it to be original in that nobody can yet say how it was
originated. all they can do is cast doubts on it's forgery.
Eric Stevens
Which puts it squarely in the "don't know" territory. That's where it
belongs until someone can firmly push it one way or the other. Of
course there is nothing stopping people taking bets.
Eric Stevens
Tedd Jacobs
"Eric Stevens" wrote...
i'll spot ya 10:1. ;-)
I.E_Johansson
True. I have seen many other theories of Enterline's but can't say that I
thought this to be his latest. Most have missed it in journals and
discussiongroups. We who have telia as a supplier have had some problems
receiving all news-articles to news-servers here the last three months.
That's why I sometimes have to use my Italian account for newsgroups.
Do you have any link or ref?
Inger E
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
>
David B
>
>reinking can be clearly seen in the coast of Great Britain and
>Ireland (I forget who made that claim. David M might know).
The very clear inconsistency between the yellow and black components of the
line on the west coast of Britain was spotted by Ken Towe during a
microscopic examination in 1974, and photos of it have been published in
various places. The only argument is over the possiblity that it simply
represents a point where the mapmaker stopped for a fresh dip of ink.
>My personal view is that getting the pen strokes in the reinking to
>perfectly match the pen strokes in the underinking is a virtually
>impossible task. Even the most skilled draftsman would fail to
>perfectly match the underinking and could be expected to get away with
>it only if the vast majority of the overinking had fallen off.
Which it has. Or, as has frequently been suggested before, maybe it was
pushed...
David B.
David B
>
>Nobody yet has shown it to be a forgery in that nobody can yet say how
>it was forged. All they can do is cast doubts on it's authenticity.
But much of the blame for that lies with the map's owners between 1957 and
1967, during which time, while a detailed authentication process was
supposed to be undertaken, not even the most basic scientific tests were
conducted. If the first purchaser had had such tests done, then gone to the
police, the story might have been very different.
>Why go all the
>trouble to try and get the paper right when you don't even know enough
>to even start to deal with the ink? It all makes for a most improbable
>forger.
That's pretty much why I rule out any of the "traditional" candidates. As
I've suggested over the past couple of days, I think it was made as a joke,
by somebody we've never heard of, and that if the soot of the ink could be
dated, it would be found to be contemporary with the parchment because it
was made by burning pages from the acompanying "Speculum Historiale" in a
deliberate attempt to fool carbon dating, which had hit the news shortly
before the VM came on the market.
David B.
David B
>
>Generally, iron gall ink made properly was dark enough
>even when applied; and of course would darken more thereafter.
That, I think, is the point. It was usually dark enough when applied
because it had been left to darken for a while before use. What makes it
dark is not how much of each ingredient you put in, but how long you allow
for the chemical reaction to work. If you forget to make a batch of ink on
Monday for use on Tuesday, you're going to be writing with something not
much darker than water, unless you add something like soot.
The VM ink is still modern though :-)
David B.
David B
>
>We who have telia as a supplier have had some problems
>receiving all news-articles to news-servers here the last three months.
For once, I think Inger may be onto something. I get the impression that
the co-operation between servers on which Usenet propagation depends is not
as healthy as it should be, and that the problem affects far more than just
Telia.
Either that or most sane folks have me killfiled but never bothered to
issue a <plonk> message.
David B.
Matti E Simonaho
> think that's one reason some folks, including Seaver, considered
that the forger's (assuming for argument's sake that it is a forgery)
motive included being just good enough to convince those who wanted to
be convinced, while being just hinky enough to get skeptics to blow
the whistle on it.
>
> It could be that the notional forger did the best job s/he could,
and it wasn't bulletproof. Or, of course, it could be that the thing
is authentic, and later activity added and changed the character of
the map such that the questions about its authenticity became
reasonable.
>
> It'll be interesting to see what, if anything, the Danish
investigation turns up.
>
OR he/she who was forced to make the map,
made it the way that those who know latin notice the errors in the
text and those who know maps notice the coastlines among many other
things and "blow the whistle on it".
In Adam von Bremens "Descriptio insularum Aquilonis" -book (prior
1085) Winland is mentioned: "Praeterea unam adhuc insulam recitavit a
multis in eo repertam *[b:fd968d1c39]occeano, quae dicitur
Winland[/b:fd968d1c39], eo quod ibi vites sponte nascantur, vinum
optimum ferentes".
If we use soundings on the *[b:fd968d1c39]bold[/b:fd968d1c39] part we
got a message in Finnish telling that "The Winland map is a fake".
Finnish language is the only language you can hide this way. It's
called "Runo Memorous". The germans did not know writing or latin
enough so they forced the Finns to do the work for them. However, the
germans did not know of the Runo Memorous and the Finns hidden own
messages in the texts they were forced to write. So we have thousands
of pages of historical information in documents est 500BC - est 1800AD
telling what really happend.
I.E_Johansson
how about taking one single lesson in Philosophy and at least two in methods
of Science?
Your assumptions regarding Finland, the Finnish language and the Finns lack
valid arguments as you presented them. Do you have one single such to
present that would help your case.
Inger E
"Matti E Simonaho" <in...@suomalaiset-dot-org.no-spam.invalid> skrev i
meddelandet news:424ba7d6$1...@127.0.0.1...
Martyn Harrison
<tronos...@tesco.net> said:
There isn't a usenet as such, there are just a number of newservers that carry
the messages it represents. Each of these must apply filters and rules that
suit their T&C or technical intentions.
So, a newserver may reject all messages originating (or passing through)
another newserver as an anti-spam measure. It may reject all messages from a
particular person, etc. When a message has an attachment or is posted in high
ascii the newserver has another decision, does it reject the message, convert
it to seven bit text, strip off the attachment or allow it through as is? Does
this depend on the group, e.g. bounce attachments for sci.arch, allow them
through for alt.mp3.binaries? When a message is crossposted to 50 newsgroups,
does it get rejected, limited to the first three on the list, or posted to all
the groups? How many crosspost groups are allowed? Is top posting ok?
Each newserver has to have its own set of rules because there is no centrally
coordinated usenet promulgating them and different purposes for the server,
e.g. an ISP server may well bounce all attachments so that it carries only the
5% or so that are text messages, rather than pirate mp3 / divX and so forth. A
premium server will carry the attachments because that's why people pay to use
it.
Since all messages are routed in some sense, to avoid duplicates, the filtering
applied by one newserver may well affect what is passed on to the next.
As a result of all this, no two newservers have an identical messagebase and
what one person reads, another may not. It's mostly consistent with stuff like
what we post unless there is a peculiarity, like someone attaches something to
make their point, and thus falls foul of the other person's server, while the
post in which they promise to send the attachment is ok.
Martyn Harrison
<trolleyf...@earthlink.net> said:
>"Alaca" <P.A...@is.fake> wrote in news:424a8d82$0$22761$dbd49001
>> Robert Stonehouse wrote: i5fj411mlldc2koiu...@4ax.com,
>>
>>> How long does it take for iron-gall ink to burn into
>>> parchment and produce the yellow effect round the black
>>> lines? Maybe the forger had not enough time for that to
>>> happen and so he had to simulate it.
>>
>> A suggestion is that the map was first drawn with a
>> (modern?) yellow paint to suggest aging of iron gall ink.
>> My question was why for the final black line a soot
>> containing ink was used and not an iron gall ink.
>
>Simplest answer I can think of is that the forger didn't have access to
>any galls. I mean, it's not like you can go down to "Galls 'R' Us" and
>pick some up.
A modern forger has access to the paper and ink technology of the past and
could elect to use them. Failing to makes for a poor forgery.
Aging the material is more challenging. Iron gall ink can be made still, easily
enough, but carbon dating it shows it to be modern - it doesn't keep well so
you can't get some medieval iron gall ink and use that.
You can get black carbon powder of the correct date effortlessly, just take
carbon from ancient material (coal would be about right) and mix it in the
correct proportions with modern material (e.g. burned green wood).
So you can get ink and paper that dates to the right period, except that it
won't look right, will it? The yellowing effect of age, behind the lines will
be missing too. So, what do you have to also do? ;)
Steve Marcus
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:l2om419nlbrpfa58t...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:09:35 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> But why is it impossible to redraw a map? Every artist,
>>> technical draughtsman or carthographer is tracing all
>>> the time. Putting pencil or chalk drawings in ink, or
>>> engraving and enhancing plates. I am doing it all the
>>> time, even digitaly.
>>> Especially for lettering the same hand is a pre, but not
>>> neccecary.
>>
>>I know that. And on the recent television program re the VM, there was
>>actually some footage of someone (obviously a competent draftsman) inking
>>over a pre-drawn line. My point was that the "impossibility" of doing
>>that
>>sort of re-inking has been argued by those pre-disposed to find that the
>>VM
>>is authentic. Included in that number is one of the folks now posting in
>>this thread, and I'm not talking about Inger E. Johansson.
>
> The question is not whether or not a draftsman can reink over an
> existing line but whether or not they can do it indetectably.
Of course they can, and did so until McCrone (and later Brown-Clark)
discovered what was done.
>
> There are conflicting opinions about this:
>
> 1. such indetectable reinking is impossible (ex FBI document
> examiner).
Define indectable. Indetectable by the naked eye in 1957? Indetectable by
just looking through a conventional microscope in 1965? It was certainly
detected by McCrone (and later Brown-Clark)
>
> 2. close scrutiny fails to reveal any evidence of reinking (a commonly
> voiced opinion)
Indeed. Voiced by whom? Certainly not people who applied state of the art
equipment, when the state of the art became such as to permit detection.
Heck, Eric, there are even a couple of portions where the lines are out of
registry, as per your #3 below.
>
> 3. reinking can be clearly seen in the coast of Great Britain and
> Ireland (I forget who made that claim. David M might know).
A claim which is easily supported.
>
> My personal view is that getting the pen strokes in the reinking to
> perfectly match the pen strokes in the underinking is a virtually
> impossible task. Even the most skilled draftsman would fail to
> perfectly match the underinking and could be expected to get away with
> it only if the vast majority of the overinking had fallen off.
But perfection wasn't necessary when the VM was first presented for sale.
It isn't even desireable, since there would not be any "perfection" in the
way that iron gall ink would have displayed yellowing of the lines over a
long period of time; some yellowing would have been "wider", that is,
dispersed more away from the black pigment while in some areas, the
yellowing would have been to a lesser degree.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
Tedd Jacobs
"I.E_Johansson" wrote...
> Your assumptions (...) lack valid arguments...
> Do you have one single such to
> present that would help your case.
my god,... the irony.
Alaca
> "Eric Stevens" wrote:
>>
>>
>> The question is not whether or not a draftsman can reink over an
>> existing line but whether or not they can do it indetectably.
>
> Of course they can, and did so until McCrone (and later Brown-Clark)
> discovered what was done.
- Don't forget that reinking can't be used as evidence for forgery.
- If reinking was done in the past there was no need for indetectably;
the usability of a map was the only objective.
If so, there was no reason for a forger to do a perfect job.
Thomas Zahr
...
>
> I can only say that someone sufficiently skilled to do all
> the necessary fancy footwork with the various pages of the
> original document while lacking even rudimentary knowledge
> of mediaeval inks reflects very badly on his upbringing as
> a forger. Why go all the trouble to try and get the paper
> right when you don't even know enough to even start to deal
> with the ink? It all makes for a most improbable forger.
>
But the "probability" of the forger depends a lot on his/her
objectives. Did he only want to fool potential buyers (who
were not likely to require invasive tests), or did he have
long term objectives?
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<Good sig's are rare>
Matti E Simonaho
> Matti, how about taking one single lesson in Philosophy and at least
two in methods of Science? Your assumptions regarding Finland, the
Finnish language and the Finns lack valid arguments as you presented
case.
>
> Inger E
>
Well, if the Swedish lessons in Philosophy and methods of Science
result in what we know as "viking age" with all faked documents, then
I can do better whitout those lessons.
Am looking for fact and evindence and those german-edited documents
(originals missing of course) are NOT hard fact.
1. It has never being proven that the items found in Scandinavia are
made by germans/scandinavians - Never.
2. It has never being proven that the rune stones are made by
germans/sweds and the writing is ancient swedish - Never.
Both 1. and 2. are only based on a swedish-nationalistic theory after
15'th century, faked documents (Tacitus, Jordanes, Adam von Bremen to
mention some) and that the items have being found in Sweden.
After translation of the runes using FUTHARK -order there is a
connection to modern Swedish through Old Icelandic (12'th century).
But there is no conection to the past (prior 12'th century). This is
one of many things proving the FUTHARK -order wrong. It is also one
of many things proving that the "viking language" has being creatd
the past 300-500 years. You don't need any lessons in philosophy or
science to figure that out.
The Finnish language however have connection to both Old Latin and Old
Greece language. If we use the non-german soundings on old Finnish the
connections is obvious.
If you remove
- all theories
- all non-original documents
- all assumptions
from the "Viking age" history, how much hard fact do you have proving
that the "Viking age" ever existed? How much hard fact do you have
proving that the rune stones has being made by "Vikings"? How much
hard fact do you have proving that the "Viking age" findings really
are made by "The Vikings"?
Please let me know - am really interested. Do you have one single such
to present that would help your case? Do you really think one single
lesson in Philosophy and at least two in methods of Science is
enough?
When history is presented correctly, without fakes, and without
theories, it's readable like an open book and you don't have to
rewrite it over and over again. In the long run it does not matter
how many lessons you take, it does not matter what title(s) you have,
it does not matter how many collagues of your kind supports you, it
does not matter how high educated those collagues of yours are.
What matters is: Do you tell the truth. That's valid argument.
Ken Towe
others via e-mail):
I am willing to accept the preference of anyone who can honestly say
that the story offered by Jim Enterline is plausible and
believable..BUT with the proviso that ALL of his story is explained,
not just bits and pieces about the cleaning part. This goes, as well,
for the other potential explanations for the ink on the Vinland Map by
those who favor authenticity. As I have said earlier, ALL of the
evidence needs to be placed into any scenario that will explain the
Vinland Map as an authentic document. So...Let's "review the bidding"
on plausibility...
ENTERLINE'S STORY: He accepts the presence of modern anatase (McCrone;
Brown & Clark) and the absence of iron (Cahill et al.). He accepts that
the ink is unlike most all other known medieval inks (McCrone;
Baynes-Cope). In the appendix of a private publication he sees the
Vinland Map as an amateurishly done product "with a demonstrably
anomalous layering" and views it as "merely the remains of an imperfect
restoration." He suggests a double application of ink by a scribe who
inexplicably (hastily?) used a non-traditional "pure tannin" ink
initially. The scribe is assumed not to have noticed its difference
with the usual iron-gall inks, e.g., a pale color or its different
behavior while penning, either before, during or after drawing the
entire map. However, "after he realized his original ink was not
turning black" the scribe (hastily?) retraced it...with incredible
accuracy. Additionally, the story requires a subsequent TOTAL cleaning
of an already poorly visible ink and the intervening parchment in a
bleaching process with the potential to dissolve the tannin as well as
soften the parchment. The process adds modern anatase from the coating
of special paper, not only to the scribe's second overlying ink
application but also to the original underlying ink. No anatase from
the overlying paper is added to the parchment which, being semi-tanned
protein (collagen) should also be softened and solubilized. (The
cellulose in paper is much less reactive to "Clorox"; parchment is
proteinaceous). In offering this story, Enterline provides none of the
usual scientific details (sources of materials, concentrations of
reagents, times of application, etc.) on the process he speculates was
used to clean the map. He offers no explanation for the yellow color of
the ink, nor shows that his cleaning process will actually work on
parchment, the procedure having been tested on paper only.
All of this is implausible and certainly is not parsimonious. I think,
given all of the evidence, an impartial jury would agree.
JIM replied (excerpted from some other comments):
"I'm also not quite clear why Ken repeated this passage after I stated
in my previous message that I was willing to replace this scenario with
Jacque's carbon separation hypothesis, which I will experiment with
soon. This would leave the scenario with only one "unexpected event,"
the bleaching."
In short, the published Enterline theory is no longer the theory that
Enterline now embraces. He has gone back to his "kitchen-table" drawing
board. We will have to await the revised edition! But, if it is like
his first version, don't expect to find any of the usual scientific
details one expects in a normal scientific publication.
The Vinland Map, unlike the two accompanying documents and most other
medieval documents, was drawn with an ink that is not an iron-gall ink.
It has two components...(1) an underlying yellow component that
contains anatase of modern commercial aspect (free of any clay
minerals!) and (2) an overlying black ink that is carbon-based and is
flaking off. There is no evidence of anatase anywhere on the parchment
itself. Put all of this together and it certainly doesn't appear to be
like anything medieval.
Eric Stevens
<IEJoh...@telia.com> wrote:
Other than the article I posted the other day, not on the internet.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
Which way?
Eric Stevens
Tedd Jacobs
"Eric Stevens" wrote...
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 21:23:59 -0700, "Tedd Jacobs"
> <Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Eric Stevens" wrote...
>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 20:10:16 -0700, "Tedd Jacobs"
>>> <Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Eric Stevens" wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> Nobody yet has shown it to be a forgery in that nobody can yet say how
>>>>> it was forged. All they can do is cast doubts on it's authenticity.
>>>>
>>>>nobody yet has shown it to be original in that nobody can yet say how it
>>>>was
>>>>originated. all they can do is cast doubts on it's forgery.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Which puts it squarely in the "don't know" territory. That's where it
>>> belongs until someone can firmly push it one way or the other. Of
>>> course there is nothing stopping people taking bets.
>>
>>
>>i'll spot ya 10:1. ;-)
>>
> Which way?
the way that lands me squarely on the affermative side when all the results
are in.
I.E_Johansson
I guess you haven't read and followed the Greenland, Vinland and Vinland map
part 1-part 3 newsgroup articles of mine - their information will be needed
to understand the full context for the Vinland map. If you don't think that
you need to have that information, at least please look closer at the
Scandinavian-English disputes of 1410's to 1430's AND what Scandinavian
bishops priests and others said at the Basel Convent. Then you at least have
a chance to get to the answer for why a map was drawn.
Inger E
"Ken Towe" <ken....@alumni.duke.edu> skrev i meddelandet
news:1112321625.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Alaca
> Ken,
> I guess you haven't read and followed the Greenland, Vinland and
> Vinland map part 1-part 3 newsgroup articles of mine - their
> information will be needed to understand the full context for the
> Vinland map. If you don't think that you need to have that
> information, at least please look closer at the Scandinavian-English
> disputes of 1410's to 1430's AND what Scandinavian bishops priests
> and others said at the Basel Convent. Then you at least have a chance
> to get to the answer for why a map was drawn.
>
> Inger E
But Inger, Ken is not talking
about the /why/ but about the /how/ !
--
P.A.
Eric Stevens
The possible motivation of the reinker depends upon when the reinking
occurred.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:l2om419nlbrpfa58t...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:09:35 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> But why is it impossible to redraw a map? Every artist,
>>>> technical draughtsman or carthographer is tracing all
>>>> the time. Putting pencil or chalk drawings in ink, or
>>>> engraving and enhancing plates. I am doing it all the
>>>> time, even digitaly.
>>>> Especially for lettering the same hand is a pre, but not
>>>> neccecary.
>>>
>>>I know that. And on the recent television program re the VM, there was
>>>actually some footage of someone (obviously a competent draftsman) inking
>>>over a pre-drawn line. My point was that the "impossibility" of doing
>>>that
>>>sort of re-inking has been argued by those pre-disposed to find that the
>>>VM
>>>is authentic. Included in that number is one of the folks now posting in
>>>this thread, and I'm not talking about Inger E. Johansson.
>>
>> The question is not whether or not a draftsman can reink over an
>> existing line but whether or not they can do it indetectably.
>
>Of course they ca ...
I presume you have some fondation for that opinion.
I made my comment as (a) a person who has spent many years on a
drawing board, with a proportion of that time making drawings in ink
and (b) a person who has more recently spent many many hours peering
at all kinds of fine markings through a binocular microscope. I expect
that if I was to spend the requisite time I would be able to pick out
and identify any quirks and irregularities in the way the (two layers
of) ink was laid down. Now, I'm not a handwriting expert but I expect
a hand writing expert who employed the same level of scrutiny would be
able to reach a conclusion as to whether or not the map had been
reinked.
> ... , and did so until McCrone (and later Brown-Clark)
>discovered what was done.
That overstates both their achievements and their conclusions.
>
>>
>> There are conflicting opinions about this:
>>
>> 1. such indetectable reinking is impossible (ex FBI document
>> examiner).
>
>Define indectable. Indetectable by the naked eye in 1957?
Possibly.
>Indetectable by just looking through a conventional microscope in 1965?
I would expect it to be detectable.
>It was certainly detected by McCrone (and later Brown-Clark).
As far as I know, neither detected reinking. Reinking has been
hypothesised as a possible explanation for their conclusions.
>
>>
>> 2. close scrutiny fails to reveal any evidence of reinking (a commonly
>> voiced opinion)
>
>Indeed. Voiced by whom? Certainly not people who applied state of the art
>equipment, when the state of the art became such as to permit detection.
>Heck, Eric, there are even a couple of portions where the lines are out of
>registry, as per your #3 below.
I did say the opinionions are conflicting.
>
>>
>> 3. reinking can be clearly seen in the coast of Great Britain and
>> Ireland (I forget who made that claim. David M might know).
>
>A claim which is easily supported.
I can't say for my own part as I have never seen either the map or the
evidence for the claimed reinking. However, as I have already writen,
I would expect such reinking to be detectable if it occurred.
>
>>
>> My personal view is that getting the pen strokes in the reinking to
>> perfectly match the pen strokes in the underinking is a virtually
>> impossible task. Even the most skilled draftsman would fail to
>> perfectly match the underinking and could be expected to get away with
>> it only if the vast majority of the overinking had fallen off.
>
>But perfection wasn't necessary when the VM was first presented for sale.
Quite true. It was only later when the tax fiddle raised the value to
stupendous levels that there was a motive for a close examination.
>It isn't even desireable, since there would not be any "perfection" in the
>way that iron gall ink would have displayed yellowing of the lines over a
>long period of time; some yellowing would have been "wider", that is,
>dispersed more away from the black pigment while in some areas, the
>yellowing would have been to a lesser degree.
The need for perfection was not in the inking but in the *reinking*.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus
Back to square one, are we? The tape of the recent televised special on the
VM clearly shows a person reininking over a previously drawn line. He, for
it was a man, had absolutely no problem doing this, your experience as a
draftsman notwithstanding.
>
>> ... , and did so until McCrone (and later Brown-Clark)
>>discovered what was done.
>
> That overstates both their achievements and their conclusions.
Nope.
>>
>>>
>>> There are conflicting opinions about this:
>>>
>>> 1. such indetectable reinking is impossible (ex FBI document
>>> examiner).
>>
>>Define indectable. Indetectable by the naked eye in 1957?
>
> Possibly.
>
>>Indetectable by just looking through a conventional microscope in 1965?
>
> I would expect it to be detectable.
>
>>It was certainly detected by McCrone (and later Brown-Clark).
>
> As far as I know, neither detected reinking. Reinking has been
> hypothesised as a possible explanation for their conclusions.
Reread the links to Towe's articles, and to the Clark-Brown article. The
latter certainly states quite clearly that they believe in and confirm
McCrone's finding that the black pigment containing line was drawn over a
previously drawn yellow line.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 2. close scrutiny fails to reveal any evidence of reinking (a commonly
>>> voiced opinion)
>>
>>Indeed. Voiced by whom? Certainly not people who applied state of the
>>art
>>equipment, when the state of the art became such as to permit detection.
>>Heck, Eric, there are even a couple of portions where the lines are out of
>>registry, as per your #3 below.
>
> I did say the opinionions are conflicting.
>>
>>>
>>> 3. reinking can be clearly seen in the coast of Great Britain and
>>> Ireland (I forget who made that claim. David M might know).
>>
>>A claim which is easily supported.
>
> I can't say for my own part as I have never seen either the map or the
> evidence for the claimed reinking. However, as I have already writen,
> I would expect such reinking to be detectable if it occurred.
And it was detected.
>>
>>>
>>> My personal view is that getting the pen strokes in the reinking to
>>> perfectly match the pen strokes in the underinking is a virtually
>>> impossible task. Even the most skilled draftsman would fail to
>>> perfectly match the underinking and could be expected to get away with
>>> it only if the vast majority of the overinking had fallen off.
>>
>>But perfection wasn't necessary when the VM was first presented for sale.
>
> Quite true. It was only later when the tax fiddle raised the value to
> stupendous levels that there was a motive for a close examination.
>
>>It isn't even desireable, since there would not be any "perfection" in the
>>way that iron gall ink would have displayed yellowing of the lines over a
>>long period of time; some yellowing would have been "wider", that is,
>>dispersed more away from the black pigment while in some areas, the
>>yellowing would have been to a lesser degree.
>
> The need for perfection was not in the inking but in the *reinking*.
Again, there's no reason why a competent draftsman or artist could not have
accomplished the reinking. It appears that the lines are out of register in
very few places on the map, so a pretty good job was done, even if it wasn't
perfect.
Alaca
> "Alaca" wrote:
>> Steve Marcus wrote:
>>> "Eric Stevens" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The question is not whether or not a draftsman can reink over an
>>>> existing line but whether or not they can do it indetectably.
>>>
>>> Of course they can, and did so until McCrone (and later Brown-Clark)
>>> discovered what was done.
>>
>> - Don't forget that reinking can't be used as evidence for forgery.
>> - If reinking was done in the past there was no need for
>> indetectably; the usability of a map was the only objective.
>> If so, there was no reason for a forger to do a perfect job.
>
> The possible motivation of the reinker depends upon when
> the reinking occurred.
In the end yes, but that is not the point. If reinking in the past
was done (usual or not), there is no need for a modern forger
to take extra care. Just retracing it as good as he can is enough.
I can do that, you can do that. An absolute 100% match is
impossible and on a crude map like the VM there is no need
for that.
The imperfections in the drawing can only be used as an
indication for redrawing. The remaining question is than:
Is reinking a unique feature of the VM? And if so: Why was
it done? And if not: Are there significan differences in accuracy?
I don't know how customary reinking was.
Ken Towe
"Back to square one, are we? The tape of the recent televised special
on the VM clearly shows a person reininking over a previously drawn
line. He, for it was a man, had absolutely no problem doing this, your
experience as a draftsman notwithstanding."
Yes, but we never saw the finished product did we? Given enough time
and the extra care needed to re-ink a document the question of accuracy
seems less of a problem. But, if the VM is genuine one needs to explain
why any scribe would want to go to the significant trouble of
re-tracing his steps over an entire document. Why should a scribe good
enough to have been given the honor of drafting a world map have
started with a weak non-iron-gall ink in the first place? And then
having done so never noticed the difference until the ENTIRE project
was completed...map and legends! Then, instead of pulling out a new
piece of parchment and using a normal iron-gall ink to redo the thing,
he chooses to spend the extra time and care to re-ink the whole map
with another non-iron-gall material...a carbon-based ink. Parchment was
not that expensive or difficult to obtain. That a medieval scribe did
all that seems like a non-starter as an explanation. The explanation
offered by McCrone seems much more plausible, especially if the forger
had plenty of time to go over his first effort carefully. And, of
course, a medieval scribe is not going to have access to
commercial-grade anatase anyhow. Because there is no evidence (XRD,
SAED, TEM) for any clay minerals associated with the anatase on the VM
a natural clay source (where anatase is typically less than 3% of the
whole) is out of the question. Paint chips falling off the ceiling or
anatase bleeding off of a bleached coated paper must (a) stick only to
the ink and not the parchment and (b) somehow wiggle under the black
and come to rest on the yellow. Come on now!
Eric Stevens
<Jac...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote:
Aah! A bet each way. Safe, but not likely to be very productive.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
The problem in undertaking indetectable reinking is not just the
accurate laying of one line over another, although that is hard enough
to do by hand. The point is documents such as the VM would have been
drawn with a quill (or possibly a steel nib) which hold only a limited
amount of ink. The character of the line changes as the quill slowly
runs dry. Then, when the quill is refilled there is a sudden and
marked change in the line. If his work is to be indetectable, the
would be reinker has to make the flow of his second layer of ink match
that of the layer over which he is redrawing. Not only does the flow
have to taper off at the same rate, it has to stop at the same point
and restart at the same point. This is the hardest part of the whole
excercise and I would expect to see errors under a microscope.
There are techniques for refilling a pen with ink without lifting it
off the paper and old books on drafting deal with this. Nevertheless I
have never seen a draftsman who can do this in such a way that the
refilling point is not visible to the trained eye.
>
>>
>>> ... , and did so until McCrone (and later Brown-Clark)
>>>discovered what was done.
>>
>> That overstates both their achievements and their conclusions.
>
>Nope.
They did not discover what was done. They discovered apparent
anomalies.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are conflicting opinions about this:
>>>>
>>>> 1. such indetectable reinking is impossible (ex FBI document
>>>> examiner).
>>>
>>>Define indectable. Indetectable by the naked eye in 1957?
>>
>> Possibly.
>>
>>>Indetectable by just looking through a conventional microscope in 1965?
>>
>> I would expect it to be detectable.
>>
>>>It was certainly detected by McCrone (and later Brown-Clark).
>>
>> As far as I know, neither detected reinking. Reinking has been
>> hypothesised as a possible explanation for their conclusions.
>
>Reread the links to Towe's articles, and to the Clark-Brown article. The
>latter certainly states quite clearly that they believe in and confirm
>McCrone's finding that the black pigment containing line was drawn over a
>previously drawn yellow line.
I notice you didn't give the links. Could that be because they don't
quite say what you claim?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. close scrutiny fails to reveal any evidence of reinking (a commonly
>>>> voiced opinion)
>>>
>>>Indeed. Voiced by whom? Certainly not people who applied state of the
>>>art
>>>equipment, when the state of the art became such as to permit detection.
>>>Heck, Eric, there are even a couple of portions where the lines are out of
>>>registry, as per your #3 below.
>>
>> I did say the opinionions are conflicting.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. reinking can be clearly seen in the coast of Great Britain and
>>>> Ireland (I forget who made that claim. David M might know).
>>>
>>>A claim which is easily supported.
>>
>> I can't say for my own part as I have never seen either the map or the
>> evidence for the claimed reinking. However, as I have already writen,
>> I would expect such reinking to be detectable if it occurred.
>
>And it was detected.
Not directly. It was merely inferred.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> My personal view is that getting the pen strokes in the reinking to
>>>> perfectly match the pen strokes in the underinking is a virtually
>>>> impossible task. Even the most skilled draftsman would fail to
>>>> perfectly match the underinking and could be expected to get away with
>>>> it only if the vast majority of the overinking had fallen off.
>>>
>>>But perfection wasn't necessary when the VM was first presented for sale.
>>
>> Quite true. It was only later when the tax fiddle raised the value to
>> stupendous levels that there was a motive for a close examination.
>>
>>>It isn't even desireable, since there would not be any "perfection" in the
>>>way that iron gall ink would have displayed yellowing of the lines over a
>>>long period of time; some yellowing would have been "wider", that is,
>>>dispersed more away from the black pigment while in some areas, the
>>>yellowing would have been to a lesser degree.
>>
>> The need for perfection was not in the inking but in the *reinking*.
>
>Again, there's no reason why a competent draftsman or artist could not have
>accomplished the reinking. It appears that the lines are out of register in
>very few places on the map, so a pretty good job was done, even if it wasn't
>perfect.
But see also my comments on stop/start above.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
The only way to resolve this is by test.
One thing which continues to puzzle me is that, with all the knowledge
of inks ancient and modern, nobody seems to have positively identified
the ink in even general terms as to family.
Eric Stevens
Alaca
> One thing which continues to puzzle me is that, with all the knowledge
> of inks ancient and modern, nobody seems to have positively identified
> the ink in even general terms as to family.
Is there enough to identify the ink?
David B said earlier:
"" Unfortunately, even with modern improvements, a lot of
ink would have to be destroyed for carbon-dating to test
this hypothesis! ""
Ken Towe
Resolve this? What does "this" refer to?
What kind of test?
Re. The ink types. I thought it was agreed that the black component was
a carbon-based ink and the underlying component was a yellow organic
ink, with anatase added. McCrone called the latter a gelatin based ink.
Brown & Clark also found it to be organic, and cited McCrone's gelatin,
but without added evidence. They called the other "carbon black". These
terms are, admittedly, not very specific, but they are general enough
to show that the two components are different and certainly are not
gall inks.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>"The only way to resolve this is by test."
>
>Resolve this? What does "this" refer to?
>What kind of test?
I was referring to your use of argument from disbelief when discussing
the behaviour of the anatase particles. My response was that an
experiment will resolve more than an argument based on credence of the
idea. As to the kind od test, that depends on the particular
hypothesis. Enterline has started down the experimental road.
>
>Re. The ink types. I thought it was agreed that the black component was
>a carbon-based ink and the underlying component was a yellow organic
>ink, with anatase added.
'Carbon based' covers a multitude of materials. 'Yellow organic' is
totally non-specific and even includes buttercups in the description.
Do you know that 30% of your car is organic and possibly 5% is carbon
based in the same sense that an ink may be carbon based?
> McCrone called the latter a gelatin based ink.
Well, that's getting better. I don't know how he reached that opinion
but I would expect a dose of Infrared spectroscopy would help confirm
the suggestion.
>Brown & Clark also found it to be organic, and cited McCrone's gelatin,
>but without added evidence. They called the other "carbon black". These
>terms are, admittedly, not very specific, but they are general enough
>to show that the two components are different and certainly are not
>gall inks.
>
I agree with that last but its not nearly enough to enable one to
confidently reach a conclusion as to what they are. That's my point.
Eric Stevens
Seppo Renfors
Eric Stevens wrote:
>
> McCrone's discovery of anatase in the ink of the Vinland Map appears
> to provide an almost insurmountable hurdle for those who argue for the
> map's authenticity.
That statement is seriously faulty. It is no such thing - UNLESS inks
on a raft of other medieval documents from the same era are tested as
exhaustively as the VM has been. Till then, all we can say is anatase
is not unknown in the ink of other documents. There are no exhaustive
studies to compare it with to make the claims you have made.
> From shortly after the time when McCrone announced
> his discovery it has been suggested that the presence of anatase may
> be due to modern contamination, specifically shedding of chalking
> paint from rooms in which the map has been exposed. However, more
> recent discoveries as to the distribution of the anatase suggest that
> it is more concentrated in the ink than elsewhere and hence
> inconsistent with recent random contamination.
>
> In his book 薦rikson, Eskimos & Columbus, Mediaval European knowledge
> of America', James Rober Enterline [The John Hopkins University Press
> 2002, ISBN 0-8018-6660-X] includes an appendix on the subject of the
> 膳inland Map's Ink'. According to a footnote this includes material
> presented by Enterline at the Seventh International Conference on the
> History of Cartography, Washington, D.C., and material posted to the
> 閃aphist' e-mail list on January 9 1997. Not withstanding this, his
> ideas do not seem to well known.
>
> While copyright precludes me from quoting the appendix in full, I am
> probably not stretching the bounds of fair use by quoting that section
> which explains how the VM may have become contaminated with anatase in
> the first place.
>
> Begin quote:
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The major anomaly of the ink is, of course, the titanium white pigment
> particles that permeate the ink's binder. Might there be an
> explanation other than forgery for how they got into the ink? McCrone
> apparently never considered such a possibility. He himself stated that
> the pigments do not actually contribute anything to the pale
> yellow-brown color of the ink; the color is determined completely by
> the binder and/or impurities, and the white pigments seem purposeless.
> It is true that experimental titanium pigments of the 19205 did have
> impure colors that match this ink binder's color, but that fact could
> be a coincidence. The same color match could be obtained with
> innumerable other materials available to a forger. The first rule of
> good forgery has always been to use authentic materials. A forger
> otherwise good enough to have faked a Vinland Map should have obtained
> his color from an authentic material like tannin instead of an exotic
> titanium dioxide mixture. Therefore, one is moved to investigate the
> possibility of another hypothesis. Might it be possible that the map
> was originally titanium-free but the ink later became contaminated
> somehow with modern anatase titanium dioxide?
>
> Paleographers maintain that sometime in its recent past the document
> has been washed or cleaned with a chemical. That hypothesis is
> corroborated by the British Museum's microscopical examination of the
> parchment's wormholes. The examination focused on the wormhole lining
> that bookworms always leave. In this case the lining has apparently
> been removed by the action of some chemical agent.6
>
> A traditional way of cleaning documents was by bleaching. Nowadays
> conservators would be aghast at the idea of bleaching a parchment
> manuscript, but in the 1950s, when the Vinland Map was putatively
> still in private hands, it was common to "spruce up" antiquities to
> increase their sale value. The fact that the wormholes were patched
> shows that the owner held appearance above historical value. The bible
> of conservators at that time was the 1937 edition of Plenderleith,
> which advocated the same treatment for parchment manuscripts as for
> paper: regular household bleaching fluid,* sodium hypochlorite.7
>
> A hypothesis that the map was bleached is consistent with the
> appreciable elemental percentage of sodium in the analysis. Traces of
> sodium were found in the plain, uninked parchment areas and larger
> amounts of sodium were found in the ink itself. Sodium has no function
> in any known ink recipe nor, in such quantity, in any white pigments.
> Nor can it be accounted for as common salt, sodium chloride (NaC1),
> from perspiring fingers. Its ratio to the chlorine in the ink (2: 1
> by weight) combined with the fact that chlorine's atom is half again
> as heavy as sodium's rules out its occurrence with the formula NaC1.
> However, sodium hypochlorite bleach, NaOCl, as it decomposes releases
> gaseous chlorine, leaving the sodium free to combine with atmospheric
> CO2 and H20 and then to appear in the observed ratio to other
> elements.8
>
> Plenderleith described a bleaching method to be used on a document
> whose ink was unknown and possibly fugitive.9 The method avoids the
> more usual procedure of immersion in bleaching fluid. Instead, a piece
> of dry tissue paper is laid on the face of the document. Then one
> brushes liquid bleach onto this paper and lets it soak through,
> peeling away the tissue before drying occurs. Now, it has been
> asserted that an unidentified private family library was the I950s
> provenance of the Vinland Map,W and the kind of tissue paper a private
> family library would have on hand would be standard typewriter tissue.
> Its size would have been just perfect for insertion into this map's
> folio as it is bound with the Tartar Relation. However, in the 1940s
> and 1950s, some high-grade tissues, particularly onion skins and bible
> papers, were opacified with thin white coatings and fillers comprising
> exactly the pigments that were found in the ink'
>
> The coating or filler was held to the tissue by a binder of starch or
> casein. These are poorly soluble in water but are readily
> alkali-soluble. The alkaline pH level of commercial hypochlorite
> bleach would soften and loosen the binder of the paper pigments. i2 If
> the binder of the map ink were also alkali-soluble, then the viscid,
> pigment-laden paper coating would be in intimate contact with the
> viscid, pigment free map ink binder. The slightest mechanical
> agitation, as from a brush applying the bleach, would mix the pigments
> into the ink and even under the edges of the carbon flakes. Transfer
> would be enhanced by the washing action of the advancing wet front as
> well as by gravity. When the two vehicles were separated and dried,
> the particles that entered the ink binder would be retained and others
> on the bare parchment perhaps not.
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> End quote
>
> If Enterline is correct, the presence of anatase in or on the VM is
> the expected result of an attempt to bleach the map with the methods
> and materials recommended by Plenderleith, the authority of the time.
> Further, with our present state of knowledge, the presence of anatase
> can only be used as an argument against the authenticity of the VM if
> it can be shown that the distribution of the anatase is inconsistent
> with the bleaching technique recommended by Plenderleith.
>
> Where we are still woefully lacking in knowledge is the true nature of
> the VM map's ink. As far as I know we do not really have much idea of
> its composition or whether or not Enterline's suggestion that the
> binder of the ink may be alkali-soluble is correct. Until we can
> answer at least this question, it seems to me that Enterline's
> hypothesis must remain open as a viable explanation for the presence
> of anatase in the Vinland Map.
As potentially plausible as this seems to be there is one glaring
error in this theory - the variable quantity of the anatase on the
map. If the theory was the case, a far less variance of anatase qty
found would be expected. The whole theory also hinges on "if"
statement(s). Nor does the theory reason why the anatase would NOT
attach onto the bare parchment - a critical point to the theory.
--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Seppo Renfors
Ken Towe wrote:
>
[..]
>
> Given enough time
> and the extra care needed to re-ink a document the question of accuracy
> seems less of a problem. But, if the VM is genuine one needs to explain
> why any scribe would want to go to the significant trouble of
> re-tracing his steps over an entire document.
See this is again something quite impossible to achieve that is stated
as a fact. There isn't a hope in hell of doing what is suggested
above. None whatsoever. Anybody can test this for themselves. Do it
with their own signature (using a quill), something they are
intimately familiar with and they WILL FAIL, guaranteed!
It requires a 100% error free achievement (so good an error isn't
visible with McCrone's equipment) for the whole document and this has
to be achieved on the very first and only attempt - on a complex
document with some extremely small writing. To suggest it is possible
to centralise a second line over the the first so it cannot be
detected, is plain insanity.
IF (and it hasn't been) it was done that way, it would be VISIBLE at
the points where the pens have been lifted to dip it into the ink
well. Surely Ken isn't suggesting that the "forger" managed to get the
exact same amount of ink on the pen (of dissimilar inks) so the
"forger" was able to lift the pen at the exact same position every
time on both lines of ink?
[..]
I.E_Johansson
> On 1 Apr 2005 14:17:27 -0800, "Ken Towe" <ken....@alumni.duke.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >"The only way to resolve this is by test."
>
>
> >
> >Resolve this? What does "this" refer to?
> >What kind of test?
>
> I was referring to your use of argument from disbelief when discussing
> the behaviour of the anatase particles. My response was that an
> experiment will resolve more than an argument based on credence of the
> idea. As to the kind od test, that depends on the particular
> hypothesis. Enterline has started down the experimental road.
> >
> >Re. The ink types. I thought it was agreed that the black component was
> >a carbon-based ink and the underlying component was a yellow organic
> >ink, with anatase added.
>
> 'Carbon based' covers a multitude of materials. 'Yellow organic' is
> totally non-specific and even includes buttercups in the description.
> Do you know that 30% of your car is organic and possibly 5% is carbon
> based in the same sense that an ink may be carbon based?
>
> > McCrone called the latter a gelatin based ink.
>
> Well, that's getting better. I don't know how he reached that opinion
> but I would expect a dose of Infrared spectroscopy would help confirm
> the suggestion.
If that's true that it's a gelantin based ink, then someone or many must
have forgotten what sometimes was used for black color and some inks.
gelantin + charcoal
or
gelantin + kalciumhydroxid + charcoal
May I ask how many of all naysayers knew that?
Inger E
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>>
>> McCrone's discovery of anatase in the ink of the Vinland Map appears
>> to provide an almost insurmountable hurdle for those who argue for the
>> map's authenticity.
--- snip ----
>> Where we are still woefully lacking in knowledge is the true nature of
>> the VM map's ink. As far as I know we do not really have much idea of
>> its composition or whether or not Enterline's suggestion that the
>> binder of the ink may be alkali-soluble is correct. Until we can
>> answer at least this question, it seems to me that Enterline's
>> hypothesis must remain open as a viable explanation for the presence
>> of anatase in the Vinland Map.
>
>As potentially plausible as this seems to be there is one glaring
>error in this theory - the variable quantity of the anatase on the
>map. If the theory was the case, a far less variance of anatase qty
>found would be expected. The whole theory also hinges on "if"
>statement(s). Nor does the theory reason why the anatase would NOT
>attach onto the bare parchment - a critical point to the theory.
Dear Seppo,
You say "a far less variance of the anatase qty would be expected".
I can only ask you, what is the variance of the found anatase, how do
you know, and what is the basis for you claiming that far less
variance would be expected?
Eric Stevens
David B
>Eric Stevens wrote: bmcr41l4hiuifufi0...@4ax.com,
>
>> One thing which continues to puzzle me is that, with all the knowledge
>> of inks ancient and modern, nobody seems to have positively identified
>> the ink in even general terms as to family.
>
>Is there enough to identify the ink?
Yes, sort of, because molecules are very small, and the ways they pack
together (which are the basis of crystal structures etc.) are also on a
very small scale, so by human standards, a very small sample is all that's
needed for testing. The trouble is that the reason for Eric's puzzlement
vanishes in an instant if you make the simple assumption that the VM ink
does not belong to any ink family, but is a unique concoction- thus
knowledge of "inks ancient and modern" will only tell you what it isn't,
not what it is.
Ultimately, the problem with a molecular analysis of the ink in the absence
of any other clues is that the goo holding it all together is organic,
which means complex molecules from simple ingredients. Gelatin may be "old"
technology, but it's one of the most complicated goos in the universe, with
all sorts of subtle varieties, depending on the balance of amino acids etc.
that go into it- and ultimately depending on the source of the gelatin.
Equally, synthetic polymers, even by the 1950s when the Vinland Map first
appeared, came in a wide variety of complex molecular structures. Given
time and resources, it would probably be possible to identify all the
molecules in the VM ink- but given the same time and resources, it would
also probably be possible to do a large number of things which would
actually be useful !
>David B said earlier:
> "" Unfortunately, even with modern improvements, a lot of
> ink would have to be destroyed for carbon-dating to test
> this hypothesis! ""
Carbon dating's a different matter, because it's about detecting rare
carbon-14 atoms, in sufficient quantities to say something statistically
significant about the quantity found. Unless a reasonably large sample is
analysed, any result obtained is likely to be challenged as statistically
invalid.
David B.
Alaca
> [...]
> Given time and resources, it would probably be possible to
> identify all the molecules in the VM ink- but given the same
> time and resources, it would also probably be possible to
> do a large number of things which would actually be useful !
> [...]
In short: There are easier ways to
establish the true nature of the VM.
Steve Marcus
"Ken Towe" <ken....@alumni.duke.edu> wrote in message
news:1112385625....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Dr. Towe, I agree 100%. My posts in this thread (and on the endless threads
on this topic that have appeared off and on in sci.arch over a period of
years) are intended to convey the position that while nothing is ever 100%
certain, the current state of the evidence (the ink evidence as well as the
cartograhical and linguistics evidence), as well as logic, compels a
conclusion that the VM is a fake. I am glad that your post (and the others
you've written in the last several weeks) clearly lays out the current state
of the evidence and the conclusion compelled thereby because I have been
posting to that effect for quite a while (and providing links to material
you've written on the topic), but your credentials in the field are, of
course, vastly superior to mine.
You evidently didn't undestand my position from my last post, and I'll
assume the blame for that because you don't know the complete posting
history between Eric Stevens and me. In the face of the evidence that the
VM appears to have been drawn by placing a black pigment containing "ink"
over a yellowish "ink" of some sort in an attempt to simulate the appearance
of a document drawn on parchment using iron gall ink several hundred years
ago, Stevens took the position (not just recently, but quite a while ago)
that it would be "impossible" for a forger to "trace over" the lower line as
accurately as it would appear to have been done on the VM. I laughed at
that statement then, and I laugh at it now. Ultimately it appeared that
Stevens had come off his position on the "impossibility" of reinking.
Stevens has now gone back somewhat to his original "impossible" position by
askng whether it would be possible to do the reinking "indetectably." My
post referred to that history; hence the "full circle" comment. I was
trying to make the point that it was not impossible that a *forger* could
have done the VM by "tracing over" or "reinking" an underlaying yellowish
binder layer with a black pigment containing upper layer. I've posted quite
often that if "reinking" was the method used by the *forger*, it was in fact
done in a way that apparently *was* very difficult to detect circa 1956, and
which was more easily detected in the 70's when McCrone applied the right
technology.
I have posted several times in this thread to the effect that it is
nonsensical (or at least illogical and in contradiction to Occam) to assume
that a scribe who wanted to draw the VM circa 1440 would have either
intentionally omitted the iron component from an iron gall ink, or would
have continued to draw the entire VM using a "spoiled" or "defective" ink
once he or she had discovered that the ink being used was "defective." I'm
glad that you agree.
Steve Marcus
All of this is very thrilling, but none of it mandates an alternative
explanation for what the evidence shows. What *you've* seen, and what you
as a non-expert in the field deem to be indetectable, is entitled only to a
certain amount of weight. As demonstrated below, the current evidence is
that, with respect to the Vinland Map:
1. There are yellowish lines underlying a black pigment containing layer.
2. The yellowish lines contain a material that can only be 20th century, or
at best a few decades earlier;
3. That people who have analyzed these things with modern instruments
believe that the hypothesis that suggests itself from their obervations,
their analysis of what they've observed, and the application of logical
principles, is that the VM was quite likely created through a reinking of
the black layer over the yellowish layer. This would agree with an attempt
to simulate the appearance of a document that was drawn hundreds of years
ago on parchment with an ink that hundreds of years later (in the present)
would present a yellowish or brownish appearance due to the ink having
"burned into" the parchment.
4. The hypothesis of these people is buttressed by their observations that
at a few spots on the VM, the black and yellow lines are out of register.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> ... , and did so until McCrone (and later Brown-Clark)
>>>>discovered what was done.
>>>
>>> That overstates both their achievements and their conclusions.
>>
>>Nope.
>
> They did not discover what was done. They discovered apparent
> anomalies.
Typical squink. Yes, they discovered anomalies and then offered, based upon
the appearance of these anomalies and the application of logic, have offered
an explanation for what was done. No one will ever "know" what was done
(absent a time machine or the discovery of someone's authentic
contemporaneous written statement of what was done). The best that can be
done is to advance a hypothesis based upon logical analysis of the evidence.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are conflicting opinions about this:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. such indetectable reinking is impossible (ex FBI document
>>>>> examiner).
>>>>
>>>>Define indectable. Indetectable by the naked eye in 1957?
>>>
>>> Possibly.
>>>
>>>>Indetectable by just looking through a conventional microscope in 1965?
>>>
>>> I would expect it to be detectable.
>>>
>>>>It was certainly detected by McCrone (and later Brown-Clark).
>>>
>>> As far as I know, neither detected reinking. Reinking has been
>>> hypothesised as a possible explanation for their conclusions.
>>
>>Reread the links to Towe's articles, and to the Clark-Brown article. The
>>latter certainly states quite clearly that they believe in and confirm
>>McCrone's finding that the black pigment containing line was drawn over a
>>previously drawn yellow line.
>
> I notice you didn't give the links. Could that be because they don't
> quite say what you claim?
No, it's because my post was written at O'Dark Thirty in the morning, I have
previously posted the links many times, and people should be able to find
them quickly via Google (either the links per se, or my previous posts).
But since you asked so "sweetly", try these:
http://webexhibits.org/vinland/paper-clark02.html which is Brown & Clark,
2002 and which is linked here:
http://webexhibits.org/vinland/paper-towe04.html which is Towe, 2004.
From the first link: "The ink lines appear to be composed of two parts, a
yellowish line which strongly adheres via absorption to the parchment and an
apparently overlaid black line from which >90% of the black pigment has
flaked off; indeed, in some places the black has been almost entirely lost."
That nicely summarizes McCrone's position, as reported elswhere by Towe,
1990 :
http://webexhibits.org/vinland/paper-towe90.html?col=webx&qt
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. close scrutiny fails to reveal any evidence of reinking (a commonly
>>>>> voiced opinion)
>>>>
>>>>Indeed. Voiced by whom? Certainly not people who applied state of the
>>>>art
>>>>equipment, when the state of the art became such as to permit detection.
>>>>Heck, Eric, there are even a couple of portions where the lines are out
>>>>of
>>>>registry, as per your #3 below.
>>>
>>> I did say the opinionions are conflicting.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. reinking can be clearly seen in the coast of Great Britain and
>>>>> Ireland (I forget who made that claim. David M might know).
>>>>
>>>>A claim which is easily supported.
>>>
>>> I can't say for my own part as I have never seen either the map or the
>>> evidence for the claimed reinking. However, as I have already writen,
>>> I would expect such reinking to be detectable if it occurred.
>>
>>And it was detected.
>
> Not directly. It was merely inferred.
Wrong. See the third link above, wherein Towe wrote: "As a possible
explanation for the microscopic characteristics of the Vinland Map ink
lines, McCrone Associates offered the suggestion that a forger very
skillfully applied a double application of ink, carefully putting down a
black line over the top of an earlier applied brownish-yellow line. In
support of the skilled forger hypothesis is the fact that, to date, only one
discrepancy between the yellow and black lines has been observed. The sole
error appears on the Map at the western coast of Britain. Cahill et al. have
reconfirmed this characteristic accuracy of the Map and have documented the
precise nature of this single discrepancy with high-magnification color
photography." (I've omitted the footnote number references and the
reference to a plate that appears in the linked article; interested persons
can go to the article and see that Dr. Towe has cited references to support
the above quoted material.)
So what? See the linked articles. Note that my comment was "The latter
certainly states quite clearly that they believe in and confirm McCrone's
finding that the black pigment containing line was drawn over a previously
drawn yellow line." The word latter referred specifically to Brown & Clark.
Note the words "believe in and confirm." These folks, based upon scientific
analysis, believe that the best explanation for the appearance of the way
the lines look is reinking; that seems to me to be the best available
explanation of the evidence, but other evidence can always come to light,
and of course your YMMV with respect to the current evidence.
Eric Stevens
<smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>news:m1cr41doleretn1ad...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 05:52:46 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>news:0rop415ns8ilu27p8...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 05:45:39 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
>>>>>news:l2om419nlbrpfa58t...@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:09:35 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
>>>>>> <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
--- snip ---
In other words, your first response to my informed comments is to
counter them with flannel.
>
>4. The hypothesis of these people is buttressed by their observations that
>at a few spots on the VM, the black and yellow lines are out of register.
As far as I know, the only people to make such an identification are
Cahill et al in their paper published in Anal. Chem. 1987, 59,
829-833. They identified ONE apparent error in reinking. I know they
took photographs of the error but I have never seen them published.
The significance of this reinking error is debatable as, after
studying a number mediaeval documents, Cahill et al reported "
...places where parts of the brownish yellow lines are out of
registration completely with the blacker vestiges of the lines". They
seem to be saying that such apparent errors are normal and to be
expected.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ... , and did so until McCrone (and later Brown-Clark)
>>>>>discovered what was done.
>>>>
>>>> That overstates both their achievements and their conclusions.
>>>
>>>Nope.
>>
>> They did not discover what was done. They discovered apparent
>> anomalies.
>
I presume you intended your next sentence as a heading.
>Typical squink. Yes, they discovered anomalies and then offered, based upon
>the appearance of these anomalies and the application of logic, have offered
>an explanation for what was done. No one will ever "know" what was done
>(absent a time machine or the discovery of someone's authentic
>contemporaneous written statement of what was done). The best that can be
>done is to advance a hypothesis based upon logical analysis of the evidence.
And a hypothesis is all it is.
Browne and Clark also say:
"It seems that the appearance of the of yellow borders to the black
ink on the VM is only possible if the VM had been produced by
laying down on the parchment first a yellow line, followed by the
black ink."
Browne and Clark make no claim to be experts in old inks or mediaeval
documents and in reaching this conclusion they are relying on the
thoughts of McRone etc who are similarly unqualified. The fact that
these people do not know how else to do it does not mean that it can
only be done by a process of reinking. I have already given my reasons
for being sceptical of reinking by a forger and I agree with Ken Towe
as to why one should be sceptical of reinking if the VM is genuine.
The only reason I remain open on this subject is that so far I have
seen no expert report on the penmanship of the VM.
With respect to second URL above, I noted Towes justifiably criticism
as to the lack of supporting detail in Olin's published work. This is
a problem with all of the reports I have seen, including the two to
which you have just referred me. In any case, this particular paper is
primarily aimed at refuting Olin's hypothesis as to the origin of the
anatase, which it seems to do rather effectively.
>
>That nicely summarizes McCrone's position, as reported elswhere by Towe,
>1990 :
>
>http://webexhibits.org/vinland/paper-towe90.html?col=webx&qt
This is primarily directed to confirming McCrone's identification of
modern anatase and accepts the conclusions McCrone drew from it.
The problem with this, as I have already quoted, is that Cahill et al
also found such apparent errors in perfectly genuine documents. Why
one should be evidence of fake while the others are genuine has never
been made clear to me. There may be perfectly a perfectly good
argument but I have never seen it made. For this, one needs
photographs.
That they could not think of any other way than reinking does not mean
that no such way exists.
I certainly don't argue that the VM is genuine. Nor do I argue that it
is false. My views are in line with the clock dial at the head of the
URL pages you have cited above and I am concerned that people have
taken entrenched positions primarily on the basis of McCrone's
discoverey of anatase.
This articl has now got far too long and I don't intend to contribute
any more to its length.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Alaca wrote in message <424dc4d4$0$70676$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl>...
>>Eric Stevens wrote: bmcr41l4hiuifufi0...@4ax.com,
>>
>>> One thing which continues to puzzle me is that, with all the knowledge
>>> of inks ancient and modern, nobody seems to have positively identified
>>> the ink in even general terms as to family.
>>
>>Is there enough to identify the ink?
>
>Yes, sort of, because molecules are very small, and the ways they pack
>together (which are the basis of crystal structures etc.) are also on a
>very small scale, so by human standards, a very small sample is all that's
>needed for testing. The trouble is that the reason for Eric's puzzlement
>vanishes in an instant if you make the simple assumption that the VM ink
>does not belong to any ink family, but is a unique concoction- thus
>knowledge of "inks ancient and modern" will only tell you what it isn't,
>not what it is.
You seem to entirely misunderstand me. I did not envisage a long list
of known recipes followed by a 'check the box' analysis. I assumed an
investigation using such techniques as infrared spectrography,
possibly gas chromatography, laser probe mass spectrography etc which
will give a good handle on the general family of materials to which
the distinguishable components of the ink belong. As far as a I know,
the theories as to the possible composition of the ink components are
based on very little evidence.
>
>Ultimately, the problem with a molecular analysis of the ink in the absence
>of any other clues is that the goo holding it all together is organic,
>which means complex molecules from simple ingredients. Gelatin may be "old"
>technology, but it's one of the most complicated goos in the universe, with
>all sorts of subtle varieties, depending on the balance of amino acids etc.
>that go into it- and ultimately depending on the source of the gelatin.
>Equally, synthetic polymers, even by the 1950s when the Vinland Map first
>appeared, came in a wide variety of complex molecular structures. Given
>time and resources, it would probably be possible to identify all the
>molecules in the VM ink- but given the same time and resources, it would
>also probably be possible to do a large number of things which would
>actually be useful !
It's not necessary to identify all the molecules. It's amazing what
kind of broad-brush conclusions can be reached. I'm not a chemist but
I call on chemists for analytical work from time to time. Infrared
spectroscopy seems to be their first port of call for this type of
work and its amazing what they can come up with. One analytic chemist
I know has a vast library of infrared spectra including access to an
online computer data base. None of this will tell him exactly what the
material is but substantially narrows the focus for the next level of
investigation.
>
>>David B said earlier:
>> "" Unfortunately, even with modern improvements, a lot of
>> ink would have to be destroyed for carbon-dating to test
>> this hypothesis! ""
>
>Carbon dating's a different matter, because it's about detecting rare
>carbon-14 atoms, in sufficient quantities to say something statistically
>significant about the quantity found. Unless a reasonably large sample is
>analysed, any result obtained is likely to be challenged as statistically
>invalid.
That's a different question altogether.
Eric Stevens
David B
>
>On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 13:46:20 -0500, "Steve Marcus"
><smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>4. The hypothesis of these people is buttressed by their observations
that
>>at a few spots on the VM, the black and yellow lines are out of register.
>
>As far as I know, the only people to make such an identification are
>Cahill et al in their paper published in Anal. Chem. 1987, 59,
>829-833. They identified ONE apparent error in reinking. I know they
>took photographs of the error but I have never seen them published.
Look closely at figure 2 of
http://webexhibits.org/vinland/paper-clark02.html
just over 2/3 of the way across, at the bottom of the thickest part of the
line. ISTR the printed version in the 1996 edition of "The Vinland Map &
the Tartar Relation" is much clearer.
>>The best that can be done is to advance
>>a hypothesis based upon logical analysis of the evidence.
>
>And a hypothesis is all it is.
Well, to be precise, several hypotheses coming up with the same conclusion
(it's a fake) through logical analyses of different types of evidence, at
least one of which has not so far been challenged.
>The only reason I remain open on this subject is that so far I have
>seen no expert report on the penmanship of the VM.
I sort of second that- I think I expressed the hope a few weeks ago that
the latest Danish investigation would concentrate on such matters. In
particular, as I have definitely mentioned in the past, nobody has ever
published a comment, positive or negative, on the assertions by the
original 1967 British Museum investigators which actually started the whole
double inking hypothesis (although they did not use that term):
"in many areas these dark particles are outside the brownish contour and
lie directly on the parchment. It is interesting to note that the ink in
the areas of fine writing on the map had a pale brownish colour only and
none of the dark particles were present."
-the implication of which is that, yes, double inking is difficult, and
a) where it was done badly, the dark line was erased, leaving only the most
stubborn particles
b) where it was too difficult to do convincingly, it was not done at all.
David B.
David B
>
>>not what it is.
>
>You seem to entirely misunderstand me. I did not envisage a long list
>of known recipes followed by a 'check the box' analysis. I assumed an
>investigation using such techniques as infrared spectrography,
>possibly gas chromatography, laser probe mass spectrography etc which
>will give a good handle on the general family of materials to which
>the distinguishable components of the ink belong. As far as a I know,
>the theories as to the possible composition of the ink components are
>based on very little evidence.
The "gelatin" identification is based on a re-investigation by McCrone in
1991, using fresh microsamples, which he seems to have done basically for
his own satisfaction, to convince himself in the wake of the Cahill
findings that he and his team hadn't been hallucinating back in 1974 (more
details, I believe, in the short Vinland Map section in his 1996 book
"Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud"). However...
>It's not necessary to identify all the molecules. It's amazing what
>kind of broad-brush conclusions can be reached. I'm not a chemist but
>I call on chemists for analytical work from time to time. Infrared
>spectroscopy seems to be their first port of call for this type of
>work and its amazing what they can come up with.
Yes it is, and today such results could perhaps be obtained using the sort
of ultramicrosamples that are permitted for analysis of the Vinland Map-
but ultimately only the discovery of modern polymers within the ink would
instantly tilt the balance, so if it is based on gelatin as McCrone's 1991
work suggested, further analysis would have to attempt something more
difficult, like identifying the technology used to prepare the gelatin.
David B.
Alaca
> a) where it was done badly, the dark line was erased, leaving only
> the most stubborn particles
> b) where it was too difficult to do convincingly, it was not done at
> all.
Parts erased, parts left untouched.
But why then /was/ the map retraced at all?
Not to hide the yellow brown lines.
Ken Towe
to accurately overlay one line over another. I agree that intuitively
this does seem to be unlikely. However, almost all of these comments
are from those whose own abilities are a point of reference. I know
that I could never do such a thing myself. Thus, it is quite
understandable that we feel that such a thing is out of the question.
However, I call your attention to the following URL...I'm sure there
are others. I have seen this done!
http://www.chron.com/cgi-bin/auth/story.mpl/content/chronicle/features/hoffman/hoffman980113.html
Here are a few excerpts from this article....
[Omer] Tuna learned how to write on rice as a teen-ager in Turkey. His
cousin showed him how. Now Tuna is so good at writing small, he can
print the whole alphabet on one grain of rice. With room left over for
a phone number.
"In Turkey, rice-writing is an art. Family members teach it to each
other. When I make a necklace, I put the name on one side of the rice
and I draw a picture on another side."
"The art of writing on rice started a thousand years ago in Turkey when
a man wanted to show a lady how much he loved her," Tuna said. "Instead
of writing on paper like everybody else, he wrote about his love on a
grain of rice."
He doesn't use a microscope or magnifying glass. No trick pens, either.
He just plain writes tiny. He doesn't drink or smoke, and his hand is
steady.
Going back to the Vinland Map, my point is that because most of us
cannot envision such a thing being possible we are naturally inclined
to dismiss it. This off-hand dismissal is likely to be most fervent
among those who find that it helps them bolster their views. But, as I
have said earlier, if the map is really medieval, those who believe
this must come up with a PLAUSIBLE explanation for the appearance AND
composition of the inks. So far, I know of no such explanation.
Certainly, Mr. Marcus has been correct in pointing out that no scribe
would have drawn an entire map of the world, complete with legends,
using such an ink. I would add that this is true, even if there was no
anatase (commercial-grade; free of associated clay minerals) in the
underlying ink! The anatase just adds to the weight of evidence against
authenticity.
Steve Marcus
>>4. The hypothesis of these people is buttressed by their observations
>>that
>>at a few spots on the VM, the black and yellow lines are out of register.
(Nota bene: I have restored item 4 to follow items 1-3 and moved Eric's
comment below the restored item.)
>
> In other words, your first response to my informed comments is to
> counter them with flannel.
Which informed comments are you referring to?? You provide a statement
about the state of the art that you've gleaned from old books. Fine. Let's
accept that as the only possible state of the art. You then state that
**you've** never observed a draftsman able to refill a pen without lifting
it off the paper without leaving a trace. So **your** experience is to be
taken as the sole and only evidence of the conclusion that you wish to
establish?? Forgive me, Eric, but **that** is flannel.
My numbered statements re the state of the evidence is factual. People can
draw conclusions from facts. You may, if you like, confine yourself to
drawing conclusions based upon **your** (undoubtedly extensive and all
incompassing) observations.
>
> As far as I know, the only people to make such an identification are
> Cahill et al in their paper published in Anal. Chem. 1987, 59,
> 829-833.
I don't understand this comment. The out of register lines on the VM were
certainly observed by McCrone and Brown/Clark.
> They identified ONE apparent error in reinking. I know they
> took photographs of the error but I have never seen them published.
> The significance of this reinking error is debatable as, after
> studying a number mediaeval documents, Cahill et al reported "
> ...places where parts of the brownish yellow lines are out of
> registration completely with the blacker vestiges of the lines". They
> seem to be saying that such apparent errors are normal and to be
> expected.
But they are not. What Dr. Towe states that Cahill et al did say: "For
comparative purposes, Cahill et al.(footnote 1) examined "...many 15th and
16th century vellum manuscripts of undoubted authenticity at the Bancroft
Library at the University of California, Berkeley". In general, these
documents looked to them very much like the Vinland Map. They observed
flaking black layers of pigment over brownish-yellow vestiges. However, in
detail, and in marked distinction to their description of the Vinland Map,
they report "...places where parts of brownish yellow lines are out of the
registration completely with the blacker vestiges of lines". They also noted
"...many places in these documents where the brownish yellow vestigal lines
appears [sic] alone, without any trace of black on them"; again a marked
contrast to their description of the Vinland Map."
Footnote 1: Cahill, T. A.; Schwab, R. N.; Kusko, B. H.; Eldred, R. A.
Möller, G.; Dutschke, D.; Wick, D. L.; Pooley, A. S. Anal. Chem. 1987, 59,
829-833.
I understand the comment by Dr. Towe in light of the fact that iron gall
inks turn from black to brown or brownish yellow over time. See, for
example: http://www.nyu.edu/classes/miller/guide/irongall.html
So if one is looking at a document done with iron gall ink, it's entirely
possible for any portion of a black line to have turned partially brown or
yellowish brown, leaving a line that is partially brownish or brownish
yellow with a bit of the width of the line still black. It is also possible
that the black has apparently disappeared, leaving the brown or brownish
yellow line as the "only" line. In the former case, a given portion of the
width of the black line has "turned" color, so it appears that two lines
(the black and the brown or brownish yellow lines are "out of register").
In the latter case, there's no black at all. This is not at all like what
the VM looks like, and the VM was, of course, not done in iron gall ink.
Now I could be wrong re Dr. Towe's comment, but somehow I doubt it.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ... , and did so until McCrone (and later Brown-Clark)
>>>>>>discovered what was done.
>>>>>
>>>>> That overstates both their achievements and their conclusions.
>>>>
>>>>Nope.
>>>
>>> They did not discover what was done. They discovered apparent
>>> anomalies.
>>
> I presume you intended your next sentence as a heading.
??
>
>>Typical squink. Yes, they discovered anomalies and then offered, based
>>upon
>>the appearance of these anomalies and the application of logic, have
>>offered
>>an explanation for what was done. No one will ever "know" what was done
>>(absent a time machine or the discovery of someone's authentic
>>contemporaneous written statement of what was done). The best that can be
>>done is to advance a hypothesis based upon logical analysis of the
>>evidence.
>
> And a hypothesis is all it is.
Indeed. But at this time, the hypothesis fits all of the facts. Which is
all that one can expect from a hypothesis, until one reaches the point at
which the agreement of the hypothesis with observations and facts is so
extensive over a period of time that the hypothesis rises to the level of a
theory.
What are you offering, other than a hypothesis? I presume that in light of
Dr. Towe's post re Enterline abandoning his "defective" or "experimental"
iron gall ink without the iron requiring inking over and subsequent cleaning
with Clorox" hypothesis, you are offering a hypothesis other than
Enterline's, so what hypothesis are you offering??
Nice try, Eric. Of course Brown (no "e" there, Eric) and Clark don't claim
to be experts in old inks or medieval documents. They do, however, claim to
be experts in the techniques that they used to analyze the VM, and they
claim to be experts in knowing what they observed using these techniques.
They reach their stated conclusion "... the appearance of the yellow borders
to the black ink on the VM is only possible ..." based upon what they saw.
There is, of course, another way to achieve that sort of appearance: the
use of iron gall inks. But the ink on the Vinland Map is not iron gall ink.
> The fact that
> these people do not know how else to do it does not mean that it can
> only be done by a process of reinking. I have already given my reasons
> for being sceptical of reinking by a forger and I agree with Ken Towe
> as to why one should be sceptical of reinking if the VM is genuine.
> The only reason I remain open on this subject is that so far I have
> seen no expert report on the penmanship of the VM.
How about the fact that no one else seems to know how to achieve the
appearance of the Vinland Map, complete with modern anatase confined to the
areas of the brownish yellow lines? What does that tell you, other than
what we all know: there's no such thing as an absolute; any theory or
hypothesis can be undone by a single contradictory fact? Meanwhile, how
does one behave? Does one say: "currently, I'll accept the working
hypothesis (and maybe I'll look for that contradictory fact and make a
contribution")? Or does one say: "well, there's no evidence to support an
unknown alternative, so the question is entirely open"?
I submit that the former statement is science. The latter statement is
voodoo.
>
> With respect to second URL above, I noted Towes justifiably criticism
> as to the lack of supporting detail in Olin's published work. This is
> a problem with all of the reports I have seen, including the two to
> which you have just referred me. In any case, this particular paper is
> primarily aimed at refuting Olin's hypothesis as to the origin of the
> anatase, which it seems to do rather effectively.
Again, you fail to understand what you read. McCrone and Brown/Clark are
reporting what they observed. Yes, they have each advanced an explanation
for what they observed. One would expect McCrone and Brown/Clark to offer
detail with respect to what they observed. And they did; there observations
are consistent and at this point cannot be doubted. Certainly they aren't
experts in medieval inks, but they are entitled to offer a logical working
hypothesis to explain their observations, particularly since they are only
engaging in those observations to test a hypothesis (the VM is authentic).
Anyone reading their report is free to consider other explanations for what
they observed, and in deciding whether the explanation advanced by McCrone
and/or Brown/Clark are better than those alternatives, one would certainly
consider the relative credentials in the specific field of medieval inks.
First, though, those "other explanations" have to be supported by data and
be repeatable.
On the other hand, Olin's work is based upon her knowledge of medieval inks,
and she proffered a way in which the observations of McCrone could be
explained other than by the explanation offered by McCrone. Dr. Towe's
statement is that Olin does not support her explanation with sufficient
detail given her expertise in the field of medieval inks. This is something
that is very disturbing since we are speaking of an expert in medieval inks
who would be expected to know details and support her conclusions based upon
those details.
And as I have explained, you must consider that those errors may well be
expected in light of the type of ink used on those documents. If they are a
result of iron gall inks, then the only relevancy of Cahill et al's
observations is to tend to supply a reason why a forger might have used a
reinking technique to create the VM: to simulate the appearance of an iron
gall inked document having considerable age.
Ah, another variation on your favorite "absence of evidence ..." security
blanket. First, let's come up with a plausible way of obtaining what
McCrone and Brown/Clark observed. Then we have a basis for adducing which
hypothesis works best. Until then, we have a hypothesis that fits the
observed facts, and no other hypothesis that fits the observed facts. Even
if we eliminate reinking, we might well end up with a hypothesis that using
a different technique, a *forger* managed to introduce a 20th century
material onto the document, so that the conclusion drawn from the hypothesis
would be unchanged.
Until one comes up with a working hypothesis that explains the observations
and data to date, and would be consistent with the VM being authentic,
scientists should, and will, continue to take the view that the VM is most
likely a fake. What view will you take?
>
> I certainly don't argue that the VM is genuine. Nor do I argue that it
> is false. My views are in line with the clock dial at the head of the
> URL pages you have cited above and I am concerned that people have
> taken entrenched positions primarily on the basis of McCrone's
> discoverey of anatase.
Good answer. Worth a "B". The "A" answer is that one must currently take
the view that on balance, the VM appears to be a fake. One principal reason
for that conclusion is precisely the discovery of modern anatase on the VM,
in certain locations only, which appears to preclude the anatase having been
accidentally introduced onto an ancient document. The conclusion of "fake"
is, of course, subject to change as new evidence is adduced, and in no way
should the quest for new evidence be abandoned.
>
>
> This articl has now got far too long and I don't intend to contribute
> any more to its length.
>
Fair enough.
Ken Towe
"On the other hand, Olin's work is based upon her knowledge of medieval
inks, and she proffered a way in which the observations of McCrone
could be explained other than by the explanation offered by McCrone.
Dr. Towe's statement is that Olin does not support her explanation
with sufficient detail given her expertise in the field of medieval
inks. This is something that is very disturbing since we are speaking
of an expert in medieval inks who would be expected to know details and
support her conclusions based upon those details."
What follows was not in my 2004 ACS letter. I learned this later and it
explains, I believe, why Mrs. Olin did not add any details or make
further experiments. In an e-mail discussion with Prof. McCulloch on
this topic (Feb. 2004; Mrs. Olin's e-mail address was also on the copy
list!) I wrote as follows...
"On re-reading the medieval recipe provided by McCulloch, I agree with
him that it is more likely that the milling (tituration) step took
place after the calcining-to-whiteness step, and not before.
Nevertheless, this calcining step (to whiteness) cannot possibly have
reached even the minimum 600°C (1100°F) temperature necessary for the
recrystallization of an anatase precipitate (Olin's precipitate?)
otherwise, as I said earlier, it would no longer be white; it would be
red.
I have now checked on the decomposition temperatures of "green vitriol"
(ferrous sulfate, 7 H2O)*. Combining several references, I find that
from about 57°C (135°F) to about 115°C (240°F) the water of
crystallization begins to leave. At about 280°C (536°F) all the water
is removed. Thus, somewhere above about 115°C to about 280°C the
material is ?calcined? and ?whiteness? is achieved. However, above
about 300°C (572°F) the compound decomposes. Toxic sulfur oxide fumes
form, the ferrous iron begins to oxidize to ferric iron and hematite
(Fe2O3) forms. In medieval times this red stuff was referred to as
"colcothar vitrioli".
"Colcothar Vitrioli: Red oxide of iron. Produced by heating green
vitriol"
(Reference: http://www.thelitterbox.org/librum/chem/)
Given this information, it adds considerable support to the statements
made by McCrone, Brown & Clark, and myself to the effect that such a
heating STEP for the preparation of an iron-gall ink in medieval times
(600-1000°C) is unknown and inconceivable, if not impossible, milling
or no milling. After all, if the principal ingredient in the
preparation of iron-gall inks is a ferrous compound, the heating of it
to >600°C (actually closer to 800°C) would leave the gallotannate
?juices" without a chemical with which to combine. How then to get a
?commercial? anatase, not just a poorly-crystallized precipitate, into
a medieval ferrous gallo-tannate ink? Perhaps Jackie can comment on
this?
KEN
*Data below taken from:
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~russ/MSDS/ferrous_sulfate.htm
% Volatiles by volume @ 21C (70F): 0
Boiling Point: > 300C (> 572F) Decomposes.
Melting Point: 57C (135F) Loses water
Stability:
Stable under ordinary conditions of use and storage. Looses water in
dry air and oxidizes upon exposure to moisture, forming a brown coating
of extremely corrosive basic ferric sulfate.
Hazardous Decomposition Products:
Burning may produce sulfur oxides.
Bottom line? The Olin hypothesis may be disregarded completely. Even
Prof. McCulloch now accepts that her idea will never work.
Alaca
>
> [...]
> Going back to the Vinland Map, my point is that because most of us
> cannot envision such a thing being possible we are naturally inclined
> to dismiss it. This off-hand dismissal is likely to be most fervent
> among those who find that it helps them bolster their views.
Good point. Most people think they can not draw or paint.
For them drawing the same thing twice must look like
some kind of magic. Impossible!
The judgement 'impossible' is therefore a prejudice.
> But, as I have said earlier, if the map is really medieval,
> those who believe this must come up with a PLAUSIBLE
> explanation for the appearance AND composition of the inks.
> So far, I know of no such explanation.
> Certainly, Mr. Marcus has been correct in pointing out that no
> scribe would have drawn an entire map of the world, complete
> with legends, using such an ink.
> I would add that this is true, even if there was no anatase
> (commercial-grade; free of associated clay minerals) in the
> underlying ink!
The crucial question here is /why/ the reinking
was done, and not /how/.
The only reasonable exploination I can think of
now is that the VM is a fake.
> The anatase just adds to the weight of evidence
> against authenticity.
I think the anastase carries more weight than the reinking,
because there is the possibility reinking was done long ago.
For the anastase that seems out of the question.
I.E_Johansson
what I, and many others, have hard understanding is why you two seem so
fix-orientated to the anatase. That's definitely not a problem - on the
contrary given the latest information that there is gelantine found as well
that make it a much stronger case than anyone of you two seem to understand
for the map being excactly the map which was copied in 1430's.
One thing I personally never understood is how you managed to miss the full
context for the 1430's map. That is a bigger puzzle than VM itself no matter
if VM is the 1430's map or a copy of it.
Inger E
Alaca
> What Dr. Towe states that Cahill et al did say: "For comparative
> purposes, Cahill et al.(footnote 1) examined
> "...many 15th and 16th century vellum manuscripts of undoubted
> authenticity at the Bancroft Library at the University of California,
> Berkeley".
> In general, these documents looked to them very much like
> the Vinland Map. They observed flaking black layers of pigment
> over > brownish-yellow vestiges.
> However, in detail, and in marked distinction to their description
> of the Vinland Map, they report "...places where parts of brownish
> yellow lines are out of the
> registration completely with the blacker vestiges of lines".
> They also noted "...many places in these documents where the
> brownish yellow vestigal lines appears [sic] alone, without any trace
> of black on them"; again a marked contrast to their description of the
> Vinland Map."
Am I right in understanding from this that the VM is too "good"?
Alaca
Ken Tow and I are incomparable in this field.
All I do here is looking at the presented facts
as I understand them and try some logic.
I am not fixated on anastase, but the anastase
is very simple to handle because it is modern.
As long as there is anastase on the VM, and
especialy under the black ink, the VM is a fake.
On the other hand I never realy understood your
tellings about that 1430 map.
This time again you are talking about it as a puzzle,
without explaining what that puzzle is and why.
If the VM and the 1430 map are identical, and the
VM is genuine, we know where it is. But If the VM
is a fake, your problem is where the forger saw his
model. Better for you to wait until the VM-question
is solved.
Eric Stevens
Steve Marcus appears to regard derision as a scientific argument.
>Ultimately it appeared that
>Stevens had come off his position on the "impossibility" of reinking.
I have never said it was impossible. I have quoted someone else who
said it was impossible. I have *explained* why I think it would be
very difficult to apply a second layer of ink indetectably.
>Stevens has now gone back somewhat to his original "impossible" position by
>askng whether it would be possible to do the reinking "indetectably." My
>post referred to that history; hence the "full circle" comment. I was
>trying to make the point that it was not impossible that a *forger* could
>have done the VM by "tracing over" or "reinking" an underlaying yellowish
>binder layer with a black pigment containing upper layer. I've posted quite
>often that if "reinking" was the method used by the *forger*, it was in fact
>done in a way that apparently *was* very difficult to detect circa 1956, and
>which was more easily detected in the 70's when McCrone applied the right
>technology.
I've never seen any work by McCrone which leads directly to the
conclusion that the map was reinked. Marcus has several times made
this claim but never given a link or reference to the relevant work by
McCrone, even when asked.
>
>I have posted several times in this thread to the effect that it is
>nonsensical (or at least illogical and in contradiction to Occam) to assume
>that a scribe who wanted to draw the VM circa 1440 would have either
>intentionally omitted the iron component from an iron gall ink, or would
>have continued to draw the entire VM using a "spoiled" or "defective" ink
>once he or she had discovered that the ink being used was "defective." I'm
>glad that you agree.
Careful analysis of what Ken Towe has written will not show that he he
exactly agrees with your statement above.
In any case, are you aware that it takes several days for iron-gall
ink to darken, even when the ink was properly mixed? The scribe may
not have known that there was anything wrong with the ink until some
time after he had finished the map.
As to how a mediaeval scribe came to be in this position, 'ink maker'
was an acknowledged trade in the days of iron gall ink and I would
expect that the scribe bought his ink rather than wandered the forests
to gather the materials to make his own. All it takes to get a batch
of defective ink is for there to be a slip on the part of the
inkmaker's apprentice.
Eric Stevens