Re: The Vinland Map Find Or Fraud?

ken.towe_at_alumni.duke.edu
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: 9 Mar 2005 11:56:53 -0800

Hu McCulloch wrote:
> "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:H9EWd.48215$7z6.6893@lakeread04...
> > "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:422AB06A.945DF7D2@not.com.au...
> >> "David B." wrote:
> >>> Hu McCulloch wrote in message ...
> >>> > I have now updated my Vinland Map webpage, at
> >>> >http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/vinland/vinland.htm ,
> >>> >to include discussions of Kirsten Seaver's new book as
> >>> >well as last month's NOVA program.
> >>>
> >>> Is anybody here aware of any person who is convinced by Seaver's
theory
> >>> about Fischer? I'm with Hu on that one (and with his annoyance
about the
> >>> title of the NOVA documentary, though I gather it makes a neat
sporting
> >>> joke for American viewers).
> >>>
> >>> On the other hand, Hu is in pretty much the same state of
obsession over
> >>> the clay theory as Seaver is over Fischer. The idea was
considered and
> >>> dismissed before Weaver's paper was ever written.
>
> For some reason David B's message didn't show up on my
> Outlook Express newsreader, so I'll answer him and Steve
> together here.
>
> How could the possibility that the VM anatase comes from clay have
> been "considered and dismissed before Weaver's [1976] paper was ever
> written," if no one knew that VM-sized anatase particles appear in
clay
> until Weaver's paper? Do you have an actual reference?
>
> >>>Unless somebody can
> >>> explain why nearly all of the other clay minerals are absent (in
effect,
> >>> why anybody would go to the considerable trouble of removing the
most
> >>> important ingredients from "pounce") it's a non-starter.
>
> As I point out on my webpage, the McCrones did fine aluminum +
> silicon consistent with 10-19% kaolinite in the anatase-rich
particles they
> analyzed. They also found particles they did not bother to analyze
that
> they identified as possibly clay (and therefore of no great interest
in
> 1974 before Weaver found pigment-sized anatase in kaolinites).
> ...
> >>> He also appears
> >>> desperately to want the ink to contain lots of iron (to the point
of
> >>> casting doubt on Brown & Clark's integrity)- but all the three
major
> >>> analyses agreed that it contains more titanium than iron.
>
> In my discussion of the NOVA program, I do state that "Katherine
Brown
> asserts that Raman spectroscopy is 'absolutely accurate' in its
> identification of pigments. Brown and Clark (2002), however, in fact
gave no
> illustration or reference for the spectrum of known iron gallotannate
ink.
> For all we know, it may be indistinguishable from the evidence of
carbon
> that they found in the black line."
> But how is challenging her accuracy equivalent to casting doubt on
her
> integrity?
>
> ..... Steve Marcus goes on to write,
> > Now, please pay attention:
> >
> > In Prof. McCulloch's Vinland Map page, he states (all without
actually
> > quoting Weaver):
> >
> > "Weaver on Anatase in Clay
> >
> > Despite the McCrone claim that anatase crystals such as those found
in the
> > VM ink do not appear in nature, Weaver (1976) reports that the TiO2
that
> > is commonly present in kaolinite clays consists mostly of rounded
anatase
> > pellets, ranging from 0.05 to 0.20 microns in size, with 0.10
micron
> > "being a good average value" (p. 216). This is a remarkably close
match to
> > the
> > range of 0.03 to 0.5 micron and average value of 0.15 micron found
by
> > McCrone on the VM (1988, p. 1011).
> > Furthermore, Weaver found that while these anatase pellets tend to
cluster
> > together in clumps of 2-10 or more, they are often found in larger
> > aggregates composed of tightly packed pellets, ranging from 5 to 10

> > microns, and occasionally up to 80 microns in diameter (p. 216).
Weaver's
> > naturally occuring kaolin anatase aggregates thus correspond well
in size
> > with the
> > anatase-rich particles isolated and analyzed by the McCrones."
>
> Is this not an accurate paraphrase of Weaver on the pages indicated?
What's
> your point?
>
> > However, as pointed out by Towe, 1990, found here:
> >
> > http://webexhibits.org/vinland/paper-towe90.html?col=webx&qt
> >
> > "Poorly crystalline anatase aggregates with a particle-size
distribution
> > overlapping that found in the Vinland Map's inks have been prepared
under
> > plausible 15th century conditions.8,9 However, these preparations
display
> > broadened X-ray diffraction maxima for anatase, indicating poor
> > crystallinity and/or very fine crystallite sizes. Transmission
electron
> > microscope study of such simulated preparations reveals that the
particles
> > are aggregates, each made up of numerous fine crystallites,
haracteristics
> > that compare most favorably to the initial precipitate stage of
modern
> > pigment preparations (compare Figure 4 with Figure 1). Therefore,
while
> > the simulated pigment is mineralogically anatase, it is not the
same as
> > the anatase seen in the inks from the Map. The differences are due
> > primarily to the absence of a calcination step in the simulation
> > experiments and secondarily to the absence of the milling
procedure."
> >
> > **The point is that the anatase on the VM is not clumped, as is
found in
> > the crystalline anatase prepared "under plausible 15th century
> > conditions."
>
> Towe is discussing Olin's ink preparation mechanism here, not
Weaver's clay
> study. Towe has in fact never mentioned the fact that clays contain
> VM-sized anatase particles in any of his published articles, despite
its
> great pertinence to the VM. (He perhaps did mention it in letters to
the
> Washington Post and Times back in 1996, which I am trying to track
down, but
> omitted it in his 1990 and 2004 papers.)

I feel obligated to respond to more of Professor McCulloch's
intellectually dishonest material on the Vinland Map. He knows full
well why neither McCrone nor myself bothered to mention such an absurd
idea as deriving anatase for the VM ink from clays. Here are excerpts
from previous correspondence. Note in the first one that he already has
copies of my letters to the Washington newspapers that he is trying to
trach down!

Here is an excerpt from the letter that I wrote to him on October 21,
2001:

"I have worked on the Vinland Map and its controversy for over 25
years. My competence, however, is limited to the chemical and
mineralogical aspects of the map and its ink. I am not competent to
comment critically on the other aspects of the map, but I do feel that
I can comment on your handling of the "finer points" of the
chemistry. I am not familiar with your background nor with what your
training might be to address such matters. Nevertheless, I find your
treatment of this aspect of the map to be inadequate and quite
misguided. It stands in marked contrast to you very detailed criticisms
of McNaughton and Saenger. I do not understand how you can write that
the McCrone-Cahill dispute is "irreconcilable". Neither do I know
how you could possibly say that my 1990 paper "...does not
demonstrate where Cahill et al. have gone wrong..." when you did not
even bother to tell your readers what my arguments were. Have you, in
fact, actually read it? Perhaps you were present at the Yale University
Press in New Haven in February of 1996, but I don't recall meeting
you. Either way, I am attaching to this message a copy of a letter that
I wrote to Wilcomb Washburn following this "dog-and-pony" show. I
am also including copies of letters that I wrote to the Washington POST
and the Washington TIMES about the press coverage of this event. After
you have read this material, perhaps we can have a discussion over the
fine points of your finer points? In particular, I will be most
interested to learn why my arguments do not demonstrate where Cahill et
al. went wrong."

I wrote this to Professor McCulloch on Feb 3, 2004 (after reminding him
that a technical comment is "Correspondence" limited to 3000 words....)

McCulloch takes issue with a statement that rounded anatase particles
do not appear in nature. Again, McCulloch desires that I discuss
something not raised in Mrs. Olin's paper. Unfortunately, and despite
my repeated efforts asking him to do so, he refuses to reveal, in
fairness, that "in nature" such particles are a VERY minor
component of aluminosilicate clays and soils, usually representing only
about 1-3% TiO2. It is quite absurd to believe that such a minor
component could be completely separated from the other 97-99% clay and
then appear in an ink on the Vinland Map (but not on the parchment).
This needle-in-the-haystack 'recipe' is another of the varied and
contrived scenarios offered to "explain" the anatase on the VM, out
of context with the rest of the evidence. It blunts the blade of
Ockham's Razor of parsimony. I'm reasonably sure that if Dr. McCrone
had even dreamed that someone would come up with such a ridiculous
idea, much less taken it seriously, he would have mentioned this
natural occurrence, but with the qualification that finding kaolin
anatase without kaolinite is like finding a needle or two in a haystack
without finding any hay. Dr. Weaver had to go through a series of
technologically intricate physical and chemical laboratory procedures
to come up with a few isolated particles, and even these were
accompanied by residual clays...none of which is seen on the VM.
Ignoring this, McCulloch has "found" kaolinite and cites that McCrone
reported aluminum and silicon in his analyses that imply kaolinite. But
he does not cite the "finer point" that apart from one or two samples
Cahill et al. did NOT find either Al or Si above the level of
detection. In this connection it is telling that McCulloch here chooses
McCrone's analyses for Si and Al when searching for his needles of
anatase among the kaolin hay but otherwise dismisses McCrone in favor
of Cahill's data for titanium. McCrone also has X-ray evidence for
quartz (SiO2) and reports finding feldspar (another Al,Si mineral) by
polarized light microscopy thereby making chemical normalization for
kaolinite almost impossible....even if the idea was credible or
applicable!

Professor McCulloch has been, and continues to be, anything but
completely honest preferring instead to rely on his half-truths and
innuendos to support his absurd ideas regarding anatase in the Vinland
Map ink. If he has legitimate points to make he should, as most
professors do, write it up in a formal manner and submit it to a
peer-reviewed journal. It is, of course, easier to take pot-shots, make
unstubstantiated claims, criticize at will...and do it all in a yellow
journalism format.

PS. Anyone who would like copies of my letters to the Washington POST
and the TIMES, or my letter to Wilcomb Washburn may contact me. I'll
try to comply.

KEN TOWE

> >If Weaver states that the naturally occuring anatase found in
kaolinite
> >clays tends "to cluster together in clumps of 2-10 or more" and that
"they
> >are often found in larger aggregates composed of tightly packed
pellets,
> >ranging from 5 to 10 microns, and occasionally up to 80 microns in
> >diameter", then this anatase is different than that found on the VM
by
> > McCrone, as confirmed by Brown & Clark, 2000, for the same reason
that the
> > VM anatase differs from that formed in the simulated 15th century
> > preparations. The VM anatase is not aggragated (clumped) to any
great
> > extent.
>
> On the contrary -- go back and read what I said about the McCrone
study on
> my webpage:
>
> "In 1972, McCrone Associates were asked by the Yale Beinecke Library
to
> perform a physical study of the map and its ink (Walter McCrone and
Lucy
> McCrone 1974; W. McCrone 1988, 1998). Their technician, Anna Teetsov,

> removed 29 small samples from the VM, along with 7 from the TR and 18
from
> the SH for comparison. One of these samples is shown in Figures 2 and
3 of
> McCrone (1988), and is approximately 100 X 200 micron (0.1 X 0.2 mm.)
in
> size.
>
> "On examination of these samples with polarized light microscopy
(PLM), they
> found that several of them contained isolated "small areas, a few
square
> micrometers" (1988, p. 1011; 1 micrometer = 1 micron = 0.001 mm.)
that
> appeared to be rich in the anatase crystalline form of titanium
dioxide. In
> Figure 3 of McCrone (1988), these appear as black specks, perhaps 5
or 10
> micron in dimension.
>
> "On training a special micro X-ray diffraction camera with a
resolution of
> about 7 microns on these areas, they were able to confirm the
presence of
> anatase, mixed with calcite and some quartz. Other analyses
confirming the
> presence of titanium and/or anatase were also able to be focused on
these
> tiny particles. Their electron microprobe analyzer was thus able to
produce
> results from an approximately 100 cubic micron (4.5 microns cubed)
sample.
> Their ion microprobe analyzer studied samples ranging from 4 to 10
micron in
> average diameter.
>
> "They were then somehow able to physically isolate some of these tiny

> particles, typical ones of which are shown in Figures 4 and 5 of
McCrone
> (1988). These are both about 5 X 10 micron in dimension, and under a
> transmission electron microscope (TEM), are shown to be aggregates
composed
> of small rounded pellets. One of these particles, described as "the
smallest
> possible subnanogram portion" (1 nanogram of anatase would fill a
cube about
> 6 microns on a side) was crushed between glass slides and examined by
TEM,
> as shown in Figure 8 of McCrone (1988). It was found to be composed
of
> rounded and somewhat elongated single crystals ranging in size from
0.03 to
> 0.5 micron in diameter (McCrone and McCrone 1974, p. 212), and
averaging
> about 0.15 micron in size (McCrone 1988, p. 1011)."
>
> Thus the roughly 0.15 micron anatase crystals on the VM were found in

> anatase-rich clusters about 5 or 10 micron in dimension, very much
like the
> anatase clusters in kaolinite.
>
> -- Hu McCulloch /
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/outliers.html

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Vinland Map Find Or Fraud?
    ... > idea as deriving anatase for the VM ink from clays. ... > then appear in an ink on the Vinland Map. ... > anatase without kaolinite is like finding a needle or two in a haystack ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... sand product which was used to dry ink. ... ink is exactly what would be expected for a map drawn in 1430's. ... > this anatase can be completely freed from the kaolinite in the ... > kaolinite flakes attached. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... If the VM is authentic there must be some rational explanation ... >this anatase can be completely freed from the kaolinite in the ... >TEM photos of McCrone and in the X-ray diffraction patterns of McCrone. ... >kaolinite flakes attached. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... > Stating that natural anatase is "....vastly more likely than anything ... even consider any ink - or come anywhere near any ink. ... > separated from the bulk of the remaining kaolinite material. ... Cite the study you rely on to make that universal claim ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >>anatase on the VM is authentic, but must await the results of Olin's ... >kaolinite flakes attached. ... Should we not accept that the anatase is modern and go on from there? ... obtain such anatase on a document by applying a specially formulated ink to ...
    (sci.archaeology)