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 +
I am re-sending this message. Hope it will be accepted. Thank you.
Ken Towe
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kenneth M Towe <[email protected]>
Date: December 7, 2009 1:35:27 PM EST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Responding to Jacqueline Olin, December 3rd
In response to Jacqueline Olin (December 3rd)...
> The discussion of a sand containing anatase as the source of
>the anatase in the Vinland Map is a difficult one because the Map
>anatase has been shown by electron microscopy to be in the form of a
>precipitate.
Simply not true. The anatase is the product of the calcining of a
precipitate... at > 800 °C. This process increases the crystallite
size. The crystallite size, while small, is completely different
from a precipitate. This is the basic problem with the Olin
hypothesis... her precipitate was just that, a very fine-grained
almost amorphous colloid. The two bear no resemblance to one another.
It has been reported that x-ray diffraction evidence
>also supports a size of the anatase particles that supports
>commercial production, however, those diffraction patterns have not
>been published to my knowledge.
Unpublished? What about Mrs. Olin's x-ray diffraction patterns of
her "precipitate"? This would show clearly that her "medieval" VM
ink analog is unlike a commercial anatase or one found in kaolin
clays as a trace component. The critical evidence exists not only
with the x-ray data but also with the TEM data and the particle size
distribution from the TEM data. All three together form a strong
argument in support of a forged document. An almost amorphous
collodial precipitate, while anatase mineralogically, does not.
The proposal that precipiatated
> anatase may be present as the result of the action of an acidic
>environment of the ink on ilmenite that may have been present in the
>ink has been disputed on the basis of the size of the anatase
>particles in the Map ink. A further discussion of this point is
>important to the argument and a further examination of (1) the data
>regarding the size of the anatase particles in the Map ink and of
>(2)the form of titanium in other medieval inks that contain titanium
>is needed.
No other medieval inks have been shown to have ANATASE (not even
one). The element titanium? Yes, in small amounts, but not ANATASE.
In addition, Cahill et al. observed that Ti was the most frequently
found element in the VM ink. Ti is NEVER the most frequently found
element in any medieval ink, precipitate or otherwise.
The latter is important because if ilmenite or a
>byproduct of ilmenite is present in other medieval inks then this
>information is relevant to the history of medieval iron gall inks
>and their composition and condition.
Another reason for Mrs. Olin to publish her x-ray diffraction
patterns?
The suggestion that the Vinland
>Map ink is a carbon ink rather than an iron gall ink must also be
>given much more serious consideration. This should be a
>consideration based on all of the information regarding the
>analytical data from the Map ink and should include a consideration
>of the ferrous iron particles reported by McCrone as found in the
>crevice of the Map and identified.
>
More serious consideration? This would require that some plausible
explanation be offered for the absence of the iron in the VM ink. As
the name implies, IRON gall inks contain IRON. The VM ink contains
very little. Iron gall inks do not contain Ti as the most frequently
found element. The iron gall inks of the accompanying documents
(Tartar Relation, Speculum historiale) contain lots of iron, copper
but no titanium at all. No sand either. More consideration is not
needed.
Ken Towe
Dr. Ken Towe
157 Broadlands Drive
Eatonton, GA 31024
[706] 923-0097
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
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
