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 <[email protected]> wrote: > Even though I admire British > cleverness , doesn't David Bradbury's description sound a bit > paranoid: "If the British Museum investigators were right in > observing that the finest writing tended to lack the black crust, and > McCrone was right about most of the black crust from the main lines > being removed deliberately, then the "painful" retracing could be a > much more casual process, applying the carbon fairly rapidly to the > major lines and to random points in the fine writing, then scraping > most of it away, particularly where it was badly matched with the > underlying yellow." Talk about painful! This is even more > self-serving to the forgery conclusion than my scenario is to authenticity. The catch is- there is evidence (staring you in the face from Cahil's 1987 report, if you know what you're really seeing) to suggest that the lines have been selectively abraded. David Bradbury _______________________________________________ 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
