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 +
To put some of Dr. Towe's points in a slightly different way- for
anybody who has studied the documented history of the Vinland Map, most
of the ideas in the Larsen / Poulsen Sommer paper have an air of
perversity about them. For example:
Given that no chemical analysis has found firm evidence that the Vinland
Map ink (unlike the Tartar Relation ink, for example) was ever an
iron-gall formulation, the only justification for using three iron-gall
inks in the testing would have been to see whether a process like
bleaching could actually remove the iron from well-cured iron-gall ink
lines, but leave a well-defined stain trace behind. In practice, not
only is there no hint of such testing in the published paper, there is
not even, unless I have missed something, an indication of how many
years the iron-gall ink lines in the experiment were left to cure before
the bleach was applied.
Given that no microscopic examination has concluded that the Vinland Map
wormholes were not created by real bookworms (i.e. larvae), there is no
justification at all for testing holes made with a punch. Even the
further research suggestion (page 203, no. 3) for a study of the
wormholes seems to ignore the fact that, thanks to the Beinecke
Library's digital collections, every page of the manuscripts (plus the
front and back covers) is easily available online, and anybody can
quickly analyse the holes for themselves; the alignment is not in doubt,
and has not been in doubt since the 1960s. What is very much in doubt is
the reason why there are several separate wormholes penetrating through
pages of the book from the covers, in relatively straight lines, rather
than one or two holes taking a more opportunistic and wriggly path.
Given that the Danish team's own 2005 study confirmed that the Vinland
Map is in two completely separated halves, joined only by modern
repairs, and given that it is drawn in a way which minimises the
difficulty of drawing from one half to the other, the suggestion that
evidence indicates it was once in one piece is naive at best.
And so on.... To me, this research represents an opportunity squandered.
David Bradbury
Whitehaven, UK
Kenneth M Towe wrote:
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.
_______________________________________________
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
