Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

Eric Stevens wrote: 
On 6 Apr 2005 18:53:20 -0700, "Ken Towe" <ken.towe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


I'm still waiting. Plenty of rhetoric and comments on other topics, but
no answer to my query...

" I would like those who regard the VM as an authentic medieval
document to answer my question ...If the map is really medieval, what
is a PLAUSIBLE explanation for the appearance AND composition of the
inks that is consistent with the age of the parchment?"



I'm answering this question because I suspect that you regard me as
one of those " who regard the VM as an authentic medieval document". I
would like to make it clear that I do NOT regard the VM as an
authentic mediaeval document. Before you go rushing off to the other
extreme, that does not mean that I regard the VM as a forgery of any
age. As I have already made clear, the evidence available to me does
not enable me to reach a final conclusion one way or the other. I just
do not know.

It is a really weak answer to argue(?) that we don't really know what
the exact composition of the ink is and therefore we cannot discuss
plausible scenarios. We DO know a number of things and these things
that we DO know have to be placed into a plausible scenario consistent
with a medieval origin.



This is a bizarre question. Are you setting someone up to later cut
their legs out from under them?


Eric,

I can't speak to Ken's motives, but from what I've seen so far, he is honestly soliciting arguments, deriving from the evidence, that may run counter to his current views.

I don't think the question is bizarre. It is one of the rational questions we've had about the VM recently.


We do not know the composition of the ink

That wasn't Ken's statement. Please note Ken's use of the qualifier "exact." If you think we know nothing whatsoever about the ink(s), then skip that part and discuss Ken's question about the *appearance* of the ink(s). However, in the bit of Ken's post (below), he does lay out some of the known issues about the ink(s), and to my mind they do relate to its/their composition as well as appearance. Don't let's get mired in the muck right out of the gate.

(and you seem to agree that
this is the case), yet you have invited people to provide "a PLAUSIBLE
explanation for the appearance AND composition of the inks that is
consistent with the age of the parchments". How on earth can you
expect anyone to provide an explanation for the composition of an ink
when they do not know what it is?


	Again, you could focus on the 'appearance' issue.


OK. What do we know NOW that requires plausible explanation?

(1) there is anatase (TiO2) in the ink (but not on the parchment). This
anatase is free of associated clay minerals (XRD, SAED, TEM shows no
clays!) therefore ruling out a "natural" source (unless someone can
PLAUSIBLY explain how a natural trace component clay anatase could have
been completely separated from the clay which is 97% of the sediment)..

(2)The anatase in the ink is a dead-ringer for commercial anatase...not
available until circa 1920.
(3) the ink is NOT an iron-gall ink, which was the standard ink of the
period and which is found (free of titanium!) on the Tartar Relation
and the Speculum Historiale. The experts at the British Museum (e.g.
David Baynes-Cope) found that the VM was unlike any of the many
documents that they had seen.
(4) The ink (as observed today) is a two-component "ink". There is an
underlying yellow-brown material with commercial-grade anatase and an
overlying carbon-based material, much of which has flaked off.

Now, regardless of what the precise composition of the ink is, what
explanation can be offered that will explain all of these four things
and will also be consistent with authenticity?
And, please...no more name-calling, gutter langauage, ad hominem
criticisms, or diversions from this point.  Thanks, KEN


Tom McDonald
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >>is a PLAUSIBLE explanation for the appearance AND composition of the ... > I'm answering this question because I suspect that you regard me as ... >>the exact composition of the ink is and therefore we cannot discuss ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... > plausible explanation for the composition of anything if they don't ... But we do know what the must common ink compositions were ... open possibilities" that have the appearance of the Vinland Map? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >>>is a PLAUSIBLE explanation for the appearance AND composition of the ... >>>the exact composition of the ink is and therefore we cannot discuss ... >the *appearance* of the ink. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >This discussion of the ink has been rapidly diluted by some irrational ... >explanation for the appearance AND composition of the inks that is ... Nobody can have a plausible explanation for the appearance of the ... appearance of two separate inks may in fact be due only to the ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... >>> layer is caused by the diffusion of selected elements of the ink ... >>there is any measure of what the yellow-brownish appearance of the ink ... founded on some sort of non-existent "uniformity of appearance of medieval ... >>>From Dr. Towe's post wherein Dr. Towe quotes Enterline as follows (with ...
    (sci.archaeology)