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 +
Golly! Jim Enterline is concerned! No one is responding to his
seemingly endless "technical" discussion. He feels that I am using
last-resort debate tactics. Frankly, I was hoping that this quixotic
venture of "hope" to save a forgery through the use of illogical, ever
changing, unfinished and indefensibly complex scenarios might die a
natural death through use of the delete button by others here. Maybe
it has? Nobody else has complained. Nobody else has offered a defense
of his scenario. But, if there is anyone out there who has not used
the delete button already, PLEASE re-read my January 5th post through
to the end. Jim said (1/4/2010) that for him, at least, the Vinland
Map was "still a religious matter". His sect wants to hold out for an
"undoubtedly small", "single occurrence"...just one that they hope
will make the Vinland Map genuine; just one that will explain
everything plausibly. A minor miracle? Such admissions, beliefs and
wishful thinking make any attempt at objective scientific discussion
virtually impossible. No matter what is said, what evidence is placed
in front of him he will dismiss, ignore, or garble it, falling back on
other "possibilities". Nevertheless, if there is anyone still reading
this stuff, please note that from my January 4th post Jim has not
answered any of the questions that were raised...not one. Jim keeps
defending illogical progressions and keeps making statements that are
misleading, purely speculative or without documentative substance.
There is obviously no end to this twisting and turning. This is what
is really indefensible.
Jim writes:
"I'm not clear why you keep coming back to differentiating between
paper and parchment inks. Are you suggesting that people writing on
parchment avoided iron gall ink?"
No, Jim, people did not avoid iron gall inks. They avoided carbon
inks...on parchment. There are citations support this, including your
own source:
"A good quality carbon ink had a blue-black appearance. Such an ink
would not discolor with age but could easily smudge with high humidity
and was easy to remove from a document."
"Iron-gall ink was very useful because it did not rub off documents.
Unlike paper, parchment was not absorbent, so carbon-based ink easily
rubbed away. Iron-gall ink ate into the parchment by reacting with
collagen in the parchment."
"In the later middle ages carbon ink, made from soot and gum mixed
with water, was sometimes used. This formed a very black ink, but it
simply adhered to the surface of the page rather than bonding into it.
Carbon ink was used in early printed books."
Please note that on Jan. 5th I asked Jim about this: "Where can one
actually see and study a medieval iron gall ink with added carbon
black written on parchment, not on paper?" His answer? No answer... yet.
Jim goes on... "You keep repeating the Brown & Clark comment on the
weakness of
carbon in the TR ink, but as I said before, only very small amounts
of carbon are needed to have a visible effect on virgin iron-gall
ink."
Very small amounts are visible? Jim's references or documents in
support of this "small amount" have not been presented here. Will Jim
provide us with an example and tell us what the "small amount" is?
This might make his reliance on the Tartar Relation, and on Mrs.
Olin's statement about carbon: "evidenced by its [very small]
presence" defensible.
He adds: "Be careful how you use their [Brown & Clark] statement about
the TR ink,
"...the general appearance of the ink (brown-black), is suggestive of
an ink which is essentially composed of iron gallotannate. The black
ink on the VM, however, is not of the same composition, as it is
carbon-based [your emphasis]" That statement was made under the
assumption that the carbon on the VM is a separate overlay, before
there was a suggestion that it comes from separation of internally
contained carbon." And under which anatase is careful to slip in?
Yes, the VM carbon is a separate overlay. It has flaked away, not
smudged away. The carbon is present as separate "dark particles",
"black specks". The VM ink is NOT an IRON-gall ink. Internal carbon
separation? This is another of Jim's suggestions, pure speculations; a
new theory; another possibility. Has he provided any evidence that
this has happened to any iron gall ink, much less his speculative gall
ink without iron? No, he has not. Will he? His track record has not
been good to date.
Carbon black in the Tartar Relation ink, never mind its separation, is
presumed by its "presence". There is no internal separation; another
presumption. As a "presence" it has neither smudged nor is it flaking
away. The hypothesized separation is not there, even in "small
amounts". The TR ink is a typical IRON-gall ink while the VM ink is not.
This will be my last post in response to the Vinland Map as a
"religious matter". Not because I'm trying to sneak away or walk out
by using some [imputed] last-resort debating tactic but because Jim is
ignoring facts in evidence, is not providing his own documentary
evidence, and is ignoring logical parsimony... all rarely successful
tactics. Unless Jim Enterline can answer some of the questions that
have been asked, can provide examples of actual documents in support
of his myriad possibilities for comparison, and can complete his
unfinished, changed-from-2002 scenario in a plausible fashion it is
useless to continue. On the other hand, if someone else at MapHist
wishes to ask questions and/or provide some added input from relevant
factual sources this situation can change. Otherwise it is clear that
most here are tired of this endless beating of a dead horse.
On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:38 PM, James Enterline wrote:
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 +
Kenneth Towe seems to have walked out of our technical discussion on
the ink of the VM. That is a well known debating tactic of last
resort when a discussant gets backed into an indefensible corner.
It's been a week since my last posting without any response from him
in spite of his established record of a day or so.
On the other hand, it's completely conceivable that other exigencies
have interrupted his schedule. I will be incommunicado myself for
the coming week. If I don't find a response waiting when I return,
I'll post a summary of the progress we have made in undermining the
McCrone scenario.
Jim Enterline
_______________________________________________
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
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
