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 +
For those MapHisters who may be justifiably bored and tired with this
"dead horse" issue, the "delete" button still works. For the rest...
Facts? Myths? Tartar Relations..a plural? Smudge-proof, non erasable
commercial black ink for comparison with medieval carbon inks? Calcite-
anatase detected in the VM ink? What has happened to the peer-review
system? This paper (officially by Larsen and Sommer, not Larsen and
Poulsen) tries to dismiss the very critical-to-authenticity presence
of industrially-modified commercial anatase (TiO2) in the Vinland
Map's ink. The authors do so by simply suggesting a myriad of things
but without any evidence whatsoever. They suggest that anatase may
have come from some hypothetical migrating, or recrystallizing calcite-
anatase composites. Or, it may have come from drying sands, or even
river water of Swiss alpine origin. No data, no tables or charts, no
photographs... nothing at all is provided to substantiate any of this.
In the section "Anatase", alone, the word "may" is used 14 times. This
is nothing but pure speculation. In providing these "facts" the
authors have irresponsibly ignored much of the published scientific
evidence to the contrary. With respect to the critical chemical and
mineralogical data they have made serious errors. Important references
that refute some of their statements are not to be found. Other
referenced papers are misquoted and/or misunderstood. It should have
been the role of peer-review referees to point some of this out, if
not to the authors, to the responsible editors: Dr. Ferdinand Werner?
Claus Reisinger?
Following Dr. Larsen's oral presentation of this work at the 2009
cartography conference in Copenhagen (and a press release on it) both
authors and Mr. Siemonsen were made well aware of many of these
problems. Well before publication neither Mr. Siemonsen nor Drs.
Larsen or Sommer responded to these concerns and criticisms. They
simply ignored them. If interested MapHist members have not seen them
already, they may want to read two articles about the Reuters press
release of this work...well before its publication:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=vinland-map-could-be-authentic
and at
http://historymedren.about.com/b/2009/07/22/vinland-map-is-genuine-or-is-it.htm
Read especially some of the relevant comments that followed each of
these. Larsen's paper has now been published so the "premature" and
"wait and see" admonitions no longer apply. Neither Drs. Larsen nor
Sommer entered into these discussions to defend their position. With
the paper available for all here to read, maybe they will finally
answer directly. Or at least provide comparative documentation for
their otherwise mythical sands and mineral composites. Explain why a
commercial carbon ink should be expected to compare with an easily
smudged medieval carbon ink. Why a 'hand iron punch tool' into
parchment should be expected to compare to bookworms. Or why potassium
bleach was used instead of the more commonly recommended sodium
hypochlorite. Point out where any medieval document has anatase sands
and/or has ink with titanium as the most frequently found element.
On Mar 18, 2010, at 11:20 AM, Jørgen D. Siemonsen 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 +
Enclosed pdf-file contains the paper " Facts and Myths about the
Vinland Map and its Contaxt" by René Larsen and Dorte V. Poulsen.
The paper was published in English last month in "Zeitschrift für
Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung" 2009- Heft 2" by Wernersche
Verlagsgesellschaft, Worms, Germany. ( Please note that on page 198,
the photos b and c have been reversed)
Karen Borchersen
Conservator, Students Councellor
School of Conservation
Esplanaden 34
DK-1263 Copenhagen K
tel.: +45 33 74 47 05
mail: k...@kons.dk
<Larsen_Sommer_ZKK_2009_2.pdf>
_______________________________________________
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
Maphist@geo.uu.nl
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
Maphist@geo.uu.nl
http://mailman.geo.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/maphist
