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 +
But (and it's a very very big But) the "ink" of the Vinland Map was
shown by the first scientists permitted to study the map- the
British Museum investigators in 1967, well over a year after after
the official book about it was published- to be neither iron-gall
nor any other formulation they had ever seen.
Am I right in thinking that there is a difference of opinion on the
Vinland map? That some think it genuine -- in which case my Swedish
wife probably owns half of Manhattan, or perhaps Newfoundland -- and
that some don't? Any chance of a five-line summary on the matter?
AB
_______________________________________________
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
