Re: The Vinland Map's Ink



Ken Towe 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?"
>
> 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.

Ken, what you attempt to present below is a "plausible scenario" why
it is a fake - and that is correct procedure as the onus of proof is
on the fake claimants - not the other way around. However it requires
no more than to show your claims are not correct - or plausible - or
that something else is more plausible than your proposals, to defeat
your claim of "fake".

> OK. What do we know NOW that requires plausible explanation?
>
> (1) there is anatase (TiO2) in the ink (but not on the parchment).

"Titanium was actually present in detectable trace amounts at five
points on the VM parchment itself " - Hu quoting Cahill. Therefor the
above statement is NOT TRUE.

> This
> anatase is free of associated clay minerals (XRD, SAED, TEM shows no
> clays!)

TiO2 (in the form of anatase) is ALWAYS "free of associated clay
minerals" or any other minerals for that matter. If it wasn't - it
wouldn't be TiO2, now would it! However the ink as examined by McCrone
does also contain clay (Ref McCrone) and minerals associated with
clay. After all "clay" is a composite of many other minerals certainly
some which do exist in the ink. This is undeniable and misleading to
claim otherwise. Therefor the above statement of yours is simply NOT
TRUE.

> 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)..

As the initial part is NOT TRUE then it cannot rule out natural
sources either.

> (2)The anatase in the ink is a dead-ringer for commercial anatase...not
> available until circa 1920.

Yet that same "dead ringer" has now, very belatedly, been said by a
certain Ken Towe to exist in that form in nature too. Also please
remember this:
"...low refractive index particles, probably ... minerals like quartz,
CLAYS, feldspars, etc." - (McCrone 1988, p. 1011)

Also note that aluminium + feldspar = clay components. Also aluminium
+ silicon = clay components.

"McCrone Associates did find some aluminum and silicon in most of
these clusters, which would be consistent with an origin from clay.
They even noted the presence of separate particles consistent with
clay, but did not deem these worthy of further study at the time." -
H. McCulloch, March 2005

Ken, you have been running this bogus claim of no "clay minerals"
existing in the ink - then resorted to a bogus claim about the
difficulty to separate the anatase from the kaolinite as some form of
"proof" that the anatase found in the ink cannot be natural.

I have NO IDEA why you are unable to admit the existence of the clay
and clay components in the ink as reported by McCrone and pointed to
by Hu as well. Aluminium, copper, zinc, titanium, and iron have been
identified in the ink - (McCrone 1988). According to Olin these all
point to a medieval ink production. But another question results from
this, how come these are in there if it was a forgery? After all, if a
"forger" was dumb enough to use anatase, then the person would also be
dumb enough to NOT know the aforementioned components are part of a
medieval ink making!

> (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.

You are no doubt aware (or at least should be) that "iron-gall ink" is
relatively modern, and is first noted in an experiment by Gaius
Plinius Secundus (23 -79 AD), but that various sources refer to the
first use of carbon ink around 2500 BC. So it is fair to say both were
known about, and many variations of ink were common in medieval times.
Who says there could not be a blend of iron-gall and lamp black inks?
After all many sources also point out that inks were very private
concoctions and often secret. Then the combination of the two methods
is far from unreasonable or unlikely - quite the opposite in fact.
Again I point out that to suggest only ONE type of ink was in use, is
in error and has to be rejected.

There exists no general, broad or specific study into inks (other than
Olin's test) used on medieval documents for a comparison - and
therefor it cannot be claimed to be "unique" as it cannot be known to
BE "unique"!

But what is known is this:
Titanium is present in other medieval inks. However, no studies of
other medieval inks have been carried out to show in what form the
titanium is present. - Olin, J. S. Pre-Columbiana 2000, 2:1, 27-36.

As the though to be "organic" components have not been identified, how
is it you can claim gall is not involved? Further more, Olin's theory
explains an Fe component well.

The main ingredients for iron-gall inks are: Tannin (found in 1000's
of different variety tree galls), vitriol (the stuff Olin speaks
about), gum arabic and water. Vitriol went by many different names,
including copperas, sal martis, sulfate of iron, copper red, English
vitriol, Roman vitriol, vitriolum cyprinum, and vitriolum hungaricum.
It was also called "chacantum" ("blood of copper") by the Greeks and
"attramentum" ("black" or "making black") by the Romans. They say a
loved child has many names - it appears that vitriol was fairly common
material then! In Goslar, Germany, a large concentration of natural
vitriol supplied much of Middle Europe.

Again the lack of knowledge of the ink's components prevents us saying
any of those ingredients are NOT involved. For instance, water and
lamp black doesn't mix very well and is also unlikely to bond well to
the parchment but is likely to mix and bond better with a tannin
added.

As for the "unlike any of the many documents that they had seen",
naturally it is - they didn't exactly have photocopiers in those days
the map was made!

> (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.

Again that "proof" that it is "commercial-grade anatase" simply
doesn't exist. The case for that claim is built on misrepresentations
detailed above.

If the ink was "commercial" (an implied claim) then the following
finding wouldn't exist:
anatase in the map's ink samples analysed differ from each other by a
factor of 1000. - McCrone, W. C. Microscope 1999, 47, 271-74.

The occurrence of anatase would be far more consistent throughout the
ink if it was commercial.

The "double inking" stuff is impossible to achieve to the exacting
degree required. What it "looks like" now is immaterial, it can only
have been ONE ink ever. Far more reasonable and plausible explanations
exist for that "look".

> 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?

They need no further explanations - they are nothing but fluff, not
facts. There are at least TWO methods by which the anatase could have
entered the ink without resorting to a VERY convoluted conspiracy
theory (without a motive) about "forgery".

> And, please...no more name-calling, gutter langauage, ad hominem
> criticisms, or diversions from this point. Thanks, KEN

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Vinland map and Historia Tartarorum, question
    ... > I had thought that the Vinland Map game was over. ... major element concentrated in the ink and not distributed over the ... > despite the fact that Towe is a specialist on clays. ... Weavers determination of the existence of the TiO2 in the clay. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Vinland map and Historia Tartarorum, question
    ... >> I had thought that the Vinland Map game was over. ... > major element concentrated in the ink and not distributed over the ... >> despite the fact that Towe is a specialist on clays. ... > Weavers determination of the existence of the TiO2 in the clay. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Map Find Or Fraud?
    ... > possibly related to clay was raised in the aftermath of the original 1974 ... alternative possibility of how the TiO2 got into the ink! ... But NOT examined further by McCrone apparently so there was nothing ... anatase as found on the map CAN be found and DOES exist in nature. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... " I would like those who regard the VM as an authentic medieval ... there is anatase in the ink. ... PLAUSIBLY explain how a natural trace component clay anatase could have ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Mr Towe libelling
    ... > Repeated requests have been made to those who cling to Vinland Map ... > The Renfors Facts? ... The Cahill PIXE analyses found anatase, not only in the ink ...
    (sci.archaeology)
Loading