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 +
Even if it's the flogging of a dead horse it does provide us bystanders with a
useful insight into innovative flogging techniques. I have found the inks
discussion quite useful as it has made me think about inks a little harder than
I might otherwise have done. I'm sure I'm not alone!
regards
John A W Lock
----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth M Towe
To: Discussion group for map history
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: [MapHist] Vinland Map -- _Could_ be authentic?
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
_______________________________________________
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
