Re: Vineland

From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 02/18/05 

Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 05:41:10 -0500

"Philip Deitiker" <Nopdeitik@att.net.Spam> wrote in message
news:Xns9600D985F8106prd@128.249.2.19...
> In sci.archaeology, Steve Marcus created a message ID
> news:eDbRd.42428$EG1.10616@lakeread04:
>
>> Using the VM as an example, it is claimed that
>> the inability of/refusal to provide any provenance for the
> map as it was
>> originally presented for sale should have been a warning
> sign to potential
>> purchasers that the map may not have been what it was
> claimed to be.
>>
>
> Since the context prior to initial sale is dubious, so should
> its authenticity, always.
>
>> However, a map lacking provenance may prove out as
> authentic, whereas a
>> "15th century" map drawn on parchment dated only to the 17th
> century clearly
>> cannot prove out as authentic.
>
> I don't know that the parchment is 17th century.

Nor do I state that it was; in fact the parchment has been dated to the 15th
century.

My point was that while provenance is certainly an important consideration
in the evaluation of an artifact, it is hardly a conclusive matter. An
artifact presented for sale (or for scholarly consideration) without any
information (or with a great deal of reluctance to provide information)
vis-a-vis its provenance comes with a built-in flashing light that screams
"warning, warning." However, it's entirely possible for such an artifact to
prove to be genuine, whereas artifacts allegedly well provenanced can
certainly prove out to be fakes.

> It doesn't
> seem to me conclusive. Troubling with this document is the
> nature of the Ink and differences in the inks used in the
> document.

Correct.

>
>> I would quibble with the word "necessry", saying instead
> that the the
>> failure to provide provenance should alert the interested
> purchaser to an
>> increased possibility that the document *may not* be
> authentic. Nota bene
>> the qualifier "may not."
>
> Right, may not, but you are not a buyer, you are looking at
> this from a scientific point of view, should it be added to
> the knowledge database or rejected.

Which is why I did not raise the issue of provenance (permit me to remind
you that you did). The recent NOVA program on the VM made provenance an
issue, and properly so if my comments above are understood, but then again,
NOVA's purpose is to attract viewers and provide some entertainment value.
Starting the program off with mention of the lack of provenance for the VM,
and reminding viewers of that lack throughout the program, certainly
provided a "hook" that would keep folks not readily conversant with either
the VM or the science of archaeology discussed on the program from changing
the channel.

>
>> Agreed, but that wasn't the burden of Seppo's original post,
> or my reply
>> thereto, or Eric's reply to my reply.
>
> It doesn't matter what the burden of Seppo's post was, the
> reality is that there are independent factors that create
> reasoning for not entertaining this map as of scientific
> value.

And the strongest is the ink, which was the first argument presented by
Seppo. Show that Seppo's claim on that matter is bogus, and you blow the
entire post out of the water *and* cast serious doubt on Seppo's credibility
in general. These objectives were, after all, a large part of my purpose in
bothering to reply to Seppo's post.

>
>> No. At least I'm not. I'm participating in this branch of
> the thread
>> because of Seppo's obviously erroneous post, and Eric's
> equally obvious
>> attempt to cloud the issue regarding the meaning of the
> anatase crystals
>> that are present, solely in the yellow lines, on the VM.
>
> I don't think this time he is clouding it, and in any case I
> am unclouding the issue by arguing that the map lacks proper
> historical documentation to take seriously.

Eric most certainly is trying to cloud the issue raised by the ink on the
map. Moreover, you are most certainly not "unclouding" or addressing the
topic of the ink my raising the entirely different (even if very germane)
issue of historical documentation. You see, Eric's post re "dating" the ink
is, as a matter of the science involved with the Vinland Map, wholly an
attempt to divert attention from the fact that the best scientific evidence
obtained to date clearly and definitively show the VM to be a fake, and Eric
can't stand that.

> In any case there
> are scenarios in which it was forged, and that is a great
> matter for a historical group to discuss, but this is
> archaeology and the map pertains to settlement, and in this
> regard it becomes a bit impertinent.

I disagree. The concept of how science approaches an artifact is certainly
relevant to an archaeology group.

>
>>> So we can heed Eric's
>>> point for the moment,
>>
>> I think not, since Eric's point was that saying that the ink
> hasn't been
>> dated is an absurd statement. It certainly has been dated
> in the sense that
>> many archaeological/anthropological artifacts have been
> dated.(See * below)
>> Specifically, it was dated to a range: not older than the
> 20th century. As
>> per info provided by Doug McDonald, I'll generously claim
> the range to be
>> not older than the 17th century.
>
> I don't disagree with that but the papers I read did not set
> an exact date, and the speculation of when the anastase was of
> quality to result in the ink granules could be confidenced in
> a wider range if the history of anastase is incomplete.

When, in archaeology, is an exact date ever set?? Surely not in C14 dating,
or in dendrochronolgy. If you date a fossil, or an arrow head, by
considering the strata in which it was found, do you arrive at a conclusion
that the fossil dates to 8,123,456 BCE, or the arrow head dates to 1685.
Dating is quite often a range of dates. In the case of the VM, as others
have pointed out, the date can be expressed as the range about 1920-1957
(the date that it was presented for sale to Witten). Some have pointed out
that the technology to produce anatase of having the characteristics of the
anatase found on the VM existed earlier than 1920; if IIRC, the allegation
was 17th century. So a conservative date would be circa 1600-1957, a range
that is hardly "huge" by archaeological or anthropological standards, and
still excludes the possibility that the VM is a genuine 15th century
artifact.

> But
> then again the confidence in that history coincides with when
> the providence for the artifact begins, and there in lies the
> biggest factor of all.

I can't agree with "biggest factor of all", as discussed above. And on that
point, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

>
>
>> When an artifact is carbon dated, it isn't dated to a
> specific year. It is
>> dated to a range of dates. Likewise with respect to
> dendrochronology. Even
>> using geological data to date an artifact such as a fossil,
> the date isn't
>> to a specific year, but to a range.
>
> That really depends on how much purified carbon of the datable
> material is extracted, for recent dating carbon dating can be
> very accurate.

Yet the dating is almost never expressed as a single year. And as one
travels back in time, less and less specific to a given year.

> Within the range of historical precision;
> however when one is talking about dating Ink, that level of
> dating is dependent on the quantity of ink that can be
> extracted, and how much carbon there is, and what is the age
> of the natural source of that carbon.

Or, in the case of the VM, on the existence of anatase of a given crystal
size, regularity of shape, and non-clumped nature.
>
>> You know that, I know that, and most of the posters on
> sci.arch know that.
>
> Within about 6 posts any person of intelligence should
> recognize that.

Don't assume that everyone who read Seppo's post would have read any other
post on sci.arch, or ever read any other post on sci.arch, or ever read
anything at all about the VM.

And that aside, why should anyone on sci.arch tolerate nonsensical posts
such as Seppo's??

>
>> I don't follow you. The map has lines on it. Those lines
> could not have
>> been inked in the 15th century as they are in fact inked,
> yet the VM was
>> purported to be from the 15th century. That's the sole
> value of this
>> discussion.
>
> In terms of magnitude, if the estimated age of the ink is off
> from the reported age of the document then yes, but if the
> estimated age of the ink is close to the reported age or even
> 75% of the age then one as issues regarding the historical
> record and the accuracy of the onset of some technology, many
> of which I don't trust, and history weighs in frequently in
> establishing earlier dates. Providence then becomes an issue,
> particularly with this document and because its warning
> temporaly corroborates the onset of technology issue.
> Case closed until something can provide better providence
>
>> Insofar as a discussion of whether the map owned by Yale
> University, which
>> goes by the name of the Vinland Map, is in fact a 15th
> century artifact, the
>> discussion is certainly scholarly (or, if you will, of an
> academic nature)
>
> But not archaeology if it is a forgery, it only becomes of
> archaeological value if it can somehow be tied to some
> reference archaeological material. It may be a matter for some
> scientific discussion of how to detect forgeries, but this is
> not the aim of the group. The aim of this group is that once
> something is established as genuine and in that establishment
> becomes a historical document which then corroborates,
> contradicts some archaeological based conclusion. It cannot
> very well do either as its historical value remains dubious on
> two accounts. It may be true that archaeological methods may
> be used to determine whether it is a forgery, but consider
> that forensic methods and archaeological methods also overlap,
> and yet we are not doing police work here.
>

I disagree with many aspects of your final two paragraphs, but it simply
isn't worth the time of either of us to continue discussing them. I simply
agree to disagree with them.
>
> --
> Philip
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/
> Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/
> Evol. of Xchrom.
> http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm
> Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/
> Sci. Arch. Aux
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/
>
> DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net

Steve 

-- 
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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Vineland
    ... > artifact presented for sale ... parchment and ink. ... There are other issues with this map, also, besides the ink. ... "dating" the ink ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Vineland
    ... > purchasers that the map may not have been what it was ... archaeology and the map pertains to settlement, ... > I think not, since Eric's point was that saying that the ink ... a wider range if the history of anastase is incomplete. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >> Eric Stevens wrote in message ... ... >> relationship between the two in "The Vinland Map and the ... >to the ink. ... >Saga and archaeology supports this, the VM map seems to be ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >>>VM can be shown to be derived from the circular world map ... > relative to the Bianco map, ... to the ink. ... Saga and archaeology supports this, the VM map seems to be ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >>> very difficult to apply a second layer of ink indetectably. ... >>direct quotation of your position) regarding the lines on the Vinland Map ... claim of impossibility was B.S. then, ... criticized Brown/Clark (and by inference McCrone) for offering an opinion ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Quantcast