Re: The Vinland Map's Ink

On Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:10:00 GMT, "David B" <tronospamchos@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
>>
>>On 6 Apr 2005 18:53:20 -0700, "Ken Towe" <ken.towe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>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?
>>
>>We do not know the composition of the ink (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?
>
>Eric, that's not the point. The Vinland Map is, in the present state of
>investigation, unique in a number of ways which can easily be explained as
>the products of 20th century forgery.

Only if you are easily satisfied. No one has yet been able to identify
the ink as a product of any particular century and Enterline's
hypothesis as to the mechanism by means of which the map was
contaminated with modern anatase has not yet been shown to be wrong.

>It has no provenance beyond 1957.
>Without a plausible explanation for *all* its unique features in a 15th
>century context (in particular, it has to account for the great wear and
>tear the VM has sustained without ever coming to the attention of any
>scholar before 1957) it has to be considered a 20th century product. It's
>up to supporters of the map to provide that plausible explanation, not up
>to those who have identified the unique features to demonstrate that they
>could *only* be the products of 20th century forgery.

I'm not sure that any feature could only be the product of a 20th
century forgery. An equally tenable argument is that it is a 15th
century product and has suffered less than sympathetic handling by
someone who recently obtained it dishonestly and since has tried to
flossy it up for resale.




Eric Stevens

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Vinland Maps Ink
    ... Eric Stevens wrote in message ... ... >>the exact composition of the ink is and therefore we cannot discuss ... Without a plausible explanation for *all* its unique features in a 15th ...
    (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
    ... 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?" ... the exact composition of the ink is and therefore we cannot discuss plausible scenarios. ... the *appearance* of the ink. ...
    (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 ... > 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)