This is a MapHist list message (when you hit 'reply' you're replying to the
whole list)
o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o + o +
James Enterline wrote:
At 04:50 PM 12/9/2009, David Bradbury wrote:
Assuming that the McCrone and Brown/Clark analyses did not
mysteriously select freakishly anomalous sampling locations, I'd have
to ask why, despite the wide variety of analytical techniques used,
there have been no reports of the significant quantities of tannic
acid you would expect to find in the Vinland Map ink if Jim
Enterline's theory is correct.
The answer may simply be that nobody has done a determinative test for
tannic acid.
Both FTIR and Raman spectroscopy, which have been used on the Vinland
Map ink, are theoretically able to do the job, but neither of the
analysts responsible reported relevant peaks.
Ever since the McCrones announced that the binder looked like early
titanium paint, everyone has assumed that it is.
That's slightly unfair. In 1974 they merely announced that the ink
contained a high concentration of anatase particles in an unknown
organic binder. Although they speculated that it seemed similar to alkyd
resin, which is indeed a 20th century paint binder, it was not until
Walter McCrone applied FTIR in the 1990s that he was able to make a
fairly confident statement, namely that the binder appeared to be based
on gelatin made from skin.
The elemental ratios in the analysis are certainly not inconsistent
with tannic acid.
In the wonderful world of organic chemistry, such elemental ratios are
not inconsistent with about a gazillion exotic chemicals.
The problem for Jacqueline Olin's theory is the genuinely freakish
ratio of titanium to iron (resulting from both a surplus of titanium
and a shortage of iron, relative to known iron gall inks) in the
Vinland Map ink in situ.
The relative shortage of iron is obviously explained by the Enterline
scenario. And the surplus of titanium is explainable by my (or other)
transfer scenarios
No it isn't. There's too much titanium underneath the surviving parts of
the black layer of the ink.
At 07:19 PM 12/9/2009, Dee Longenbaugh wrote:
The last I heard, the ink is fading on the map, thus settling the
point. Am I wrong? Has anyone seen it lately?
Yes, it is fading, and I was one of the first to comment on that. I
suggested that it is the result of remnants of the hypothetical
bleaching involved in my transfer scenario. The ink does have
elevated chlorine. See the Appendix in my book, _Erikson, Eskimos &
Columbus_.
Jim Enterline
Yale has colour photos of the map including a standard colour scale; it
would be useful for somebody to repeat that photography, so that a
direct comparison can be made. The contrast-enhanced photos published by
Yale in 1965 cannot be used for this purpose, but the one example I've
seen of the British Museum (monochrome) photos from 1967 certainly shows
that the yellow component of the ink was quite pale even then.
David Bradbury
Whitehaven, England
_______________________________________________
MapHist: E-mail discussion group on the history of cartography
hosted by the Faculty of Geosciences, University of Utrecht.
The statements and opinions expressed in this message are those of
the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the University of
Utrecht. The University of Utrecht does not take any responsibility for
the views of the author.
List Information: http://www.maphist.nl
Maphist mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/maphist
