Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

On Tue, 5 Apr 2005 05:32:23 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:ivt351p7dvje3edkn9dvgp93fk5ea0vbq9@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Mon, 4 Apr 2005 20:34:04 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
>> <smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> returned to the subject and wrote:
>>
>> --- snip ---
>>
>>>> I know. But I understood you to be making the case that there are no
>>>> detectable mistakes such as one would expect to see from re-inking on
>>>> the
>>>> VM. If that's incorrect, let me know. I haven't been following this as
>>>> closely as I might, as some of it has been in your posts to Steve
>>>> Marcus,
>>>> which, after considering that life is short, I mostly skim or skip.
>>>
>>>One point that Eric neglects is that any "detectable mistake" that would
>>>occur as a result of reinking a quill pen would also show up on a map in
>>>which the lines were not traced one over the other. That is, when drawing
>>>a
>>>map as extensive as the Vinland Map, even a single line drawn directly on
>>>the parchment would ultimately run the quill out of ink to the point where
>>>it would have to be reinked.
>>>
>>>So the start/stop effect that Eric is going on about has nothing at all to
>>>do with whether the Vinland Map was drawn by tracing black "ink" over
>>>yellowish "ink." One would expect to see evidence of the quill having
>>>been
>>>lifted from the parchment and reinked, (or reinked without being lifted in
>>>accordance with one of Eric's posts), whether the ink was traced over a
>>>previously drawn line or layed down directly on the parchment.
>>
>> You seem to have missed my point. To be indetectable, the pen drawing
>> the black line would have to be refreshed at the same point as the pen
>> which drew the yellow line beneath.
>
>You have now dredged that one up for the first time.

I first raised it on Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 09:00:04 +1200
Message-ID: <gni051p3areh5qd99b851epi6is1moote2@xxxxxxx> in response
to Ken Towe's on the subject of writing on rice when I wrote

"that [to] retrace/reink the map indetecatably he would have to lay
down the second layer of penstrokes so that they do not discernably
differ from the first. I think the odds against doing this
successfully are very high, especially if it needs a low power
microscope to make out the details of pen strokes of the first
layer"

>And I'll respond by
>asking "why"? The lines aren't all that wide anyway, so how much of the
>yellow line would extend beyond the width of the black line, and what makes
>you think that the "refreshing points" of the yellow line would be easily
>observable?

The finishes may not be but the starts almost certainly would protrude
beyond the black, even when they are produced by the same pen stroke.
>
>Then, there's the point that if you know this (likely, since you just made
>it up), and it is correct (unlikely), so would a forger (or the scribe if
>the VM is not a fake). The latter probably wouldn't care, except to the
>extent that it might become a matter of aesthetics. The former, were he
>concerned, could simply take care to start and stop ) the black strokes (at
>which point the pen would be re-inked) where he could see that he had
>started and stopped the yellow strokes.

I can only requote " the odds against doing this successfully are very
high, especially if it needs a low power microscope to make out the
details of pen strokes of the first layer". Don't forget we are not
discussing the ease with which the black lines could be accurately
overlaid on the yellow but the ease with which they could be overlaid
*indetectably*.
>
>
>> Further, they would both have to
>> run out of ink at the same point also.
>
>Nope. The black ink need not runout at precisely the point where the yellow
>ink had, particularly if the *forger* took care to use short strokes when
>applying the yellow ink. Then all the *forger* needed to do was just stop
>the black stroke where appropriate in terms of where the yellow stroke had
>been stopped.

Stopping the stroke looks different from the pen running out of ink.
>
>> This would apply not once but
>> for each of the many times for which the pen was required to be lifted
>> from and reapplied to the map as it was drawn, and then redrawn.
>
>So? The *forger* (if, or course, there was a forger) was probably working;
>that is, earning a living. S/he was going to get paid for his/her time. In
>that case, s/he did not need to be miserly with the spending of it.
>
>>
>> I wouldn't expect the pen to be reloaded without lifting from the
>> *** while drawing the map. This is a trick required when drawing a
>> straight line with the aid of a ruler when the line is too long for
>> one pen load of ink. There are two many opportunities to stop and
>> reload the pen while drawing the VM to require reloading without
>> leaving the paper.
>
>Again, that is irrelevant when considering what I wrote above.
>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Second, that has been reinked is only a hypothesis. Another
>>>>> possibility is that a yet as unidentified ink was used which separated
>>>>> into two phases on the paper. The first phase left the yellow
>>>>> (possibly gelatin based) stain in the paper and the second formed a
>>>>> black layer on top. The black layer was improperly fused to the lower
>>>>> layer and has since flaked away. This is not an altogether unknown
>>>>> behaviour for carbon based inks.
>>>>
>>>> The case you raised was what might happen had the scribe used faulty
>>>> ink,
>>>> and not known it for some days. If that were the case with the VM, then
>>>> re-inking would have been the only way to arrive at the current
>>>> situation.
>>>> Well, other than starting over with good ink.
>>>
>>>Which is what any scribe would choose to do, seeing as how re-inking would
>>>require at least as much effort as starting de novo, but would add the
>>>additional task of having to carefully go over the previously drawn line.
>>
>> Which is another reason why I think reinking by scribe is a
>> non-starter.
>
>You didn't think that when you discovered that Enterline was touting such a
>theory. Apparently, Enterline has now jumped ship on that, followed closely
>by you.

Enterline was discussing a possible mechanism for the presence of
anatase. Neither of us have 'jumped ship' as you call it.
>
>But of course the theory that a scribe used reinking when creating the
>Vinland Map was always irrelevant to the issue of whether the Vinland Map is
>a fake. The point is not whether a scribe creating the thing circa 1440
>would have engaged in re-inking; I've been arguing (as have others,
>including Dr. Towe) that to believe that is to believe in nonsense.

You will find that I have several times said much the same thing.

>The
>reinking issue arises only as one plausible explanation for why the Vinland
>Map lines are what they are; apparently comprised of two separately applied
>"inks", one yellowish and lying beneath the other, which is a black pigment
>containing "ink", and **wherein the yellowish line contains modern anatase
>while the rest of Map, and certainly to the the black pigment containing
>material, do not.** Even Enterline only argued "medieval" reinking to
>explain why the lines on the VM are what they are; part two of his argument
>was to explain how the anatase got where it is on the VM.

Without hunting far and wide, the strongest statement that I can find
by Enterline is in the midst of a paragraph of his appendix in which
he is discussing McCrone's findings etc. Enterline wrote:

"A different explanation *could* be could be that this black layer
which is now almost completely flaked away, it (sic) merely the
remains of an imperfect resoration attempt sometime during the
intervening centuries. It *could* even have resulted from retracing
by the original scribe after he realised that his original ink was
not turning black."

The emphasis on 'could' is my own. Enterline discussed the
possibility. He does not argue for it as far as I know.




Eric Stevens

.