The Vinland map is fake

[ex-khobar Andy]

Since the 1960s this map in the Yale collection has been taken to be early 15th century - i.e., pre Columbus - and shows that Norsemen knew Greenland and the east coasts of Canada and the US. Because the ink has traces of a titanium compound first isolated with the last 100 years, an investigation at Yale has determined it is a fake.

A shame: I love old maps and this was such a good story.

There is plenty of evidence that Norsemen reached what is now Newfoundland and Labrador - the fact that this map is a fake does not change that.

[MajGenl.Meade]

So Yale has finally got on board with McCrone who was publishing the anatase problem as far back as 1972.

https://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/66/M ... inland-Map is a more recent restatement by McCrone.

Then again, this person argued that anatase is present in medieval documents and can be present not as a result of purposeful manufacture of the 0.3 micro anatase crystals created in 1917 but as breakdown of chemicals and minerals used in produce genuine 15th century ink. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ac034533c

I've been reading about this in relation to the book 1421 in which Gavin Menzies (who he) weaves a theory of vast fleets of Chinese ships discovering, mapping and colonizing (by default and shipwreck) almost everywhere in the world except Golders Green. He gave the obligatory caution about the controversy over of the map and a small bow to "if it turns out to be fake", but he's clear on believing it to be genuine and key bit in one of his threads of evidence. Until he died anyway. One of his kindest reviewers wrote:

The reasoning of 1421 is inexorably circular, its evidence spurious, its research derisory, its borrowings unacknowledged, its citations slipshod, and its assertions preposterous ... Examination of the book's central claims reveals they are uniformly without substance

And "A poll of History News Network readers ranked 1421 as the third-least credible history book in print" which puts it on kinda of a par with the map I suppose. Glad I didn't buy it for more than a few pennies at the local library bring-and-buy table

[ex-khobar Andy]

I had forgotten that McCrone had weighed in on the Vinland map. I have his very convincing book on the Turin shroud which concluded that it was a medieval forgery.

If you are in the lab business for 50 years you come across McCrone. I never met him but I used his company a few times as a subcontractor for microscopy work we lacked the equipment and skills to do. McCrone pretty much developed the polarized light microscopy method for detecting asbestos fibers of various types.

The Vinland map is one of those things I wanted for years to be true. I wonder what they will do with it now.

[liberty]

Well, I have an anthropology and history fantasy too. I think it would be an intellectual wet dream if we could discover an extensive ancient Roman library of a wealthy intellectual with the books intact. Our knowledge of the ancient Mediterranean world would increase significantly.

Of interest to me, specifically, would be the voyage of Pytheas around the coast of northern Europe and the Phoenician circumnavigation of Africa in 600 b.c. By the way, the Phoenicians visit to sub-Saharan Africa could explain how the knowledge of ironworking made its way to the region. I don't accept the theory that the natives discovered iron-making themselves.

[ex-khobar Andy]

It's been a debate for over a century: did Africans copy the technology of iron smelting from Mediterranean sources such as the Phoenecians (modern day Lebanon) or did they independently develop the technology? Carbon dating can help. You cannot carbon date iron, but you can date the wood used to fire the smelters.

There's a pretty good Wikipedia piece here, and a research paper abstracted here. The balance of the evidence is that iron making arose independently - maybe several times - in sub-Saharan Africa. Tell us why you don't buy that theory.

[liberty]

It's been a debate for over a century: did Africans copy the technology of iron smelting from Mediterranean sources such as the Phoenecians (modern day Lebanon) or did they independently develop the technology? Carbon dating can help. You cannot carbon date iron, but you can date the wood used to fire the smelters.

There's a pretty good Wikipedia piece here, and a research paper abstracted here. The balance of the evidence is that iron making arose independently - maybe several times - in sub-Saharan Africa. Tell us why you don't buy that theory.

The Eurasians were able to discover iron because they had first accidentally discovered copper and bronze; the sub-Saharan Africans had no bronze age. Look at how bloom iron is made; iron cannot be accidentally discovered; the process is too complex. How would the Africans know to look for iron if they had no concept of metal? The first stage of iron making is iron bloom. Look at some photos of iron bloom. Does it look like it is useful for anything? How would the sub-Saharan Africans know to process it into iron unless someone showed them?.

[Scooter]

So now the village idiot is claiming to be an expert in metallurgical archaeology.

The moronic nonsense he is spouting is in line with his previous idiotic claims that sub-Saharan Africans didn't use horses. Kept insisting on it when presented with the facts. It's as if the dumbass cracker celebrates his stupidity.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Tell us why you don't buy that theory.

Serious question, exkA?

[ex-khobar Andy]

Tell us why you don't buy that theory.

Serious question, exkA?

You got me, Meade.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[liberty]

Well, Meade, if you think I'm wrong, you tell me how the sub-Saharan Africans accidentally discovered ironmaking. How did they accidentally invent the furnace? Did they need it to heat their homes during brutally cold tropical winters? How would they accidentally build a furnace; a hole in the ground is good enough for copper but not hot enough for iron. How did they accidentally invent the bellows ?; Blowpipes are sufficient for copper but don't produce enough air for ironmaking. And why would they fill the accidentally built furnace with charcoal and iron ore and work the Bellows for hours? And, after that work, they would produce something worthless. How would they know to reheat the bloom and beat out the impurities? Did they enjoy beating on rocks? People are all basically the same. They don't do hard labor unless there is a reward to be had.

Meade if you think you really believe that the people of sub-Saharan Africa invented their own ironmaking process, explain how they did it if you have the courage.

I know that there's a theory that the Indians independently developed ironmaking, but I don't buy that one either. I think there was one discovery of iron making in Turkey by the Hittites, and even though they tried to keep it a secret, it eventually spread all over Eurasia and eventually into Africa as far as Equatorial Africa.

[Econoline]

lib - How do you account for the fact that most (all?) of the sites in Sub-Saharan Africa where iron was first used were well inland and thus unlikely to have had any contact with the seafaring Phoenecians?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, Meade, if you think I'm wrong . . .

You misunderstand. I was laughing at Andy's "you got me".

[liberty]

lib - How do you account for the fact that most (all?) of the sites in Sub-Saharan Africa where iron was first used were well inland and thus unlikely to have had any contact with the seafaring Phoenecians?

I don't know if I'd put much significance in the archeological location of those sites; there is no way to know how many sites were missed. And just because one finds a pile of charcoal does not mean one found an ancient ironworking site. Locating Archaeology sites outside of cities or ancient ruins is a hard thing to do. One piece of ground without some marker looks pretty much like another. We generally don't know what is just beneath the surface of the earth. I know about ground penetrating radar; it is a helpful tool, but one can't afford to survey the entire world.

And my pet theory of the Phoenicians bring knowledge of iron to SSA is not the only way for ironworking to enter equatorial Africa. It is not even very popular. Many scholars don't believe the Phoenicians reached sub-Saharan Africa; I do. It has a certain amount of romance about it, so maybe I just want it to be true, but I am honest enough to admit that. The popular routes for ironworking to reach central Africa are up the Nile valley and across cross southern Arabia to the horn of Africa.

Think about this analogy: How does one go from the stone age to the iron age? One would not have the necessary tools; that would be like learning algebra with no knowledge of arithmetic. That would only be possible if you believe blacks are more intelligent than others, which would be racist.