The Vinland Map Find or Fraud (redux) (was Re: The Vinland Map's Ink)

Eric Stevens wrote in message ...
>
>On 29 Apr 2005 18:14:45 -0700, "Ken Towe" <ken.towe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>My reservations have always been based
>on the amount we do not yet know about either material in the vellum
>or the nature of the ink. I cannot bring myself to reach a conclusion
>when I know there is a significant possibility that new information
>could show it to be wrong.
>
>My attitude is in part derived from the mysterious provenance of the
>VM. We don't know who has had it, where they got it from or what they
>have done to it. Things might be easier if we did.

But, as I have already tried to emphasise, the mysterious provenance of the
VM is another of the pieces of evidence which should lead us towards the
conclusion that it is a fake. I've changed the thread name because I've
also repeatedly tried to emphasise that undue concentration on the ink
composition shifts attention away from proper discussion of the other
evidence.

The principal problem with the provenance is that the VM, unlike the two
documents on paper and parchment of the same age with which it seems to
have shared a binding over a long period of time, is very worn. This ought
to mean that it was studied intensively- yet the results of that study do
not apear ever to have been made known to the world at large. It is true
that certain features on the Vinland Map are reflected on other maps,
notably the "Cantino" and "Canerio" / Caveri maps from the beginning of the
16th century. It is conspicuous, however, that some expected similarities
are absent- the VM's correct depiction of Greenland as an island is not
used, nor is its substantially-correct depiction of large islands off the
coast of Asia; the topography of Vinland itself is also significantly
different. In short, it is much more likely that the VM was drawn by a
hoaxer who possessed an image of an early 16th century map than that it was
seen by the maker of an early 16th century map.

We now know the Tartar Relation to be genuine, thanks to the discovery of
an earlier copy of the same document in the same context- bound in with a
section of the Speculum Historiale- which is known to have been in the
right part of Europe at the time the Yale copy is understood to have been
made (c1440) and is likely to be the actual source. Like the Vinland Map,
it appears to have had zero influence, but unlike the VM, it is in good
condition, so it is most logical to assume that it was copied not because
it was intrinsically important but simply because it was available- and
that like the original, it remained in obscurity over the centuries, quite
possibly unread until the 1950s. Also on this subject- it is notable that
the alleged opportunity was not taken c1440 to draw a VM on the endpapers
of the earlier Speculum volume, or on an added *** of parchment or paper.

Even before the discovery of the earlier copy, the lack of provenance of
the Tartar Relation was never a serious problem, because its appearance
exactly fitted its situation. That is not the case with the Vinland Map,
and must be taken as further evidence that it is a fake. Can anybody
produce any evidence (other than the date of the parchment on which it is
drawn, which leads no further than the missing pages of the Speculum
volume) that points positively to the VM being medieval? I can show you a
whole lot more that points in the other direction.


David B.


.

Quantcast