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 +
Santa Sorry to wake you up from your well deserved sleep, but a serious issue has arisen. How can we prove you visited every child in the world? No you may not use evidence of presents, nor your mileage counter, nor sworn statements from your reindeer. You must prove that you were not at home when you were not at home to prove it. Sorry, induction doesn't count either. Happy New Year Michael Ross > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]on > Behalf Of James Enterline > Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2009 4:14 PM > To: Discussion group for map history > Subject: Re: [MapHist] Vinland Map - time for a new conference? > > > 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 + > > At 01:05 PM 12/28/2009, Kenneth Towe wrote, responding to Nick > Pelling's of:Dec 28, 2009, at 8:36 AM, > > >You are quite correct. It should have read "reasonably complete". > >The problem is that we do not know what the current Enterline > >hypothesis is... the one that goes together with his reasonably > >complete scenario. > > I had recently concluded that Ken and I must agree to > disagree. However, he now seems more open to reasonable discussion > of alternatives, and I would like to participate in that. It would > be great if he and I could collaborate in joint progress on the > Mystery of the Twinity. Crystallography aside, I believe there are > many on this list who can follow the moderate technical level of > discussion we have been having, and many who are interested. Perhaps > we can get some of them to join in. Maybe this thread IS the > new conference. > > First of all , I want to demonstrate my own willingness to be > flexible. The word "scenario" was originally chosen for its > indefiniteness, but I can go further and call it a "sketch." I > expect to have it change as more is learned. > > > The reasonably complete scenario that he published in 2002 has > > been shown to be awkward in several places. As he said recently > > (12/16), he is now willing to give up the idea that a scribe > > quickly retraced his non-iron ink: "I'm willing to abandon that > > requirement..." > > "Willing," yes, but that does not necessarily mean that I have. It > depends. And it is not a "requirement" -- that's Ken's word. I > just adopted what was the going hypothesis at the time, as I've > repeated three times. > > >His hypothetical bleach-induced re-fluidization and lateral transfer > >mechanism to slip anatase under the black line requires that the > >black line be there beforehand. > > Yes, but you will see in a moment that this statement contains a > veiled assumption. > > >Abandoning a retracing leaves no realistic alternative explanation > >for the presence of a black overlying carbon line. > > I think much too short shrift has been given to the separation > hypothesis. As Jacque Olin reminded us years ago, Iron gall ink > often contained carbon to make it immediately visible before the > half-hour-later chemical reaction made it permanent. But the > separation need not have happened in the fifteenth century. The > actual separation may not have happened until the putative bleach > solution re-fluidized it. Who knows (without further study) what > forces might have been going on then. But obviously one reasonable > hypothesis is that there was no overlying carbon line until the > bleached ink dried out again. After that , the surfaced carbon was > highly subject to flaking away. > > Many pictures of the line show carbon particles concentrated near the > outer edge of the line. This would be a natural and expectable > effect as separation produced a lateral as well as vertical > force. The famous "mis-registration" of the overlying line in > Cahill's Plate C has been widely used to buttress a hypothesis of > (imperfect) retracing. But let's look very closely at that > picture. It's as though some force had pulled the carbon back away > from the edge before it had a chance to dry completely. Maybe a > bubble or variation of pressure from the brush. Lifting it up -- > even a bristle or two from a twist of the wrist --could create a > slight suction, pulling the edges back toward the center again. > > Does this kind of thinking sound so unreasonable? > > Jim > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
