Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 05:31:34 -0400, "Steve Marcus"
<smarcus_spamout_@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:fct551dgs6f2pgoe35igdbfdikn7qsui53@xxxxxxxxxx
>> 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"
>
>Yet another example of your inability to write what you mean. Do you see
>the difference between what you are quoting from 4/4/05 and the much more
>specific way you specify refreshing the pen used for the upper layer at the
>same point that the pen for the lower layer was reinked? In case you don't,
>"discernably differ" can refer to a lot of different parameters other than
>the refreshing point of the pens used to draw the two supperpoed lines.

I'm not really interested in dealing with these continuing quibbles
raised by you. Of course I can see the difference between the two
statement. You either missed or failed to understand what I was
getting at when I wrote it the first time in response to Ken Towe. I
spelled it out in greater detail the second time round to help make
clear to you exactly what I was talking about. Now you want to take
exception to the fact that I have raised this matter twice, the second
time in terms more detailed than the first. I don't know what your
purpose is in raising such an objection but it is entirely unhelpful
to the subject of the discussion.
>
>>
>>>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.
>
>Ipse Dixit. Why would the starts and stops of the underlying layer "almost
>certainly ... protrude beyond the black"? And if so, by what measure; that
>is, what is the width of the amount of underlying layer that "would protude
>beyond the black" on either (or each) side of the black line?

As for the why, because in the genuine article the underlying yellow
layer is caused by the diffusion of selected elements of the ink
through the paper. You may recall that I have already raised the
subject of paper chromatography in this context. At the start of the
pen stroke, the pen is full and more ink is applied to the paper than
when the pen is about to run dry. That means that the diffusion will
be greater at the beginning than at the end. In fact, at the very end,
there may be so little liquid that there will be no diffusion visible
at all.

As for the 'how much', there can be no hard and fast measure. It all
depends on the paper, the pen, the ink, how much ink is in the pen
etc. Have you never tried writing on blotting paper with an ink pen?
>
>>>
>>>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*.
>
>Again, ipse dixit. Why should the scribe need a low power microscope to
>detect the start/stop point of any portion of freshly laid down yellow
>lines?

Because he has to be able to see the detail of what he is doing as
well as the person who is going to come along later and try and detect
what he has done.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>But you haven't established that the VM shows evidence of the latter, as
>opposed to the former.

As far as I know, no expert in penmanship or writing has looked at it
in this degree of detail. That's one of my concerns.
>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>Do try to keep up with the thread. Dr. Towe has quoted an e-mail from
>Enterline in which he disavows the whole proposed scenario of reinking
>followed by subsequent cleaning. See: http://tinyurl.com/3zm9r

That's not literally what Ken Towe said. To quote accurately "In
short, the published Enterline theory is no longer the theory that
Enterline now embraces." Enterline has not disavowed his theory but
modified it on the basis of more recent information. After all, why
should he not?

Only a few days ago Enterline told me in a private email that he has
merely modified his theory to allow for the possibility suggested by
Jacquelin Olin that the overlying carbon came not from a re-tracing,
but rather from carbon mixed with the original would-be iron gall ink
to make it visible before oxidation. Apparently Jacquelin Olin
believes a significant amount of such carbon would be squeezed out to
the surface upon drying, Enterline's underlying hypothesis that
anatase might have been transferred to the VM during a modern
bleaching operation remains untouched.
>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>Indeed. See the link added above to Dr. Towe's post.

With respect to Ken Towe, he is not James Enterline.



Eric Stevens

.