Vinland Map of America no forgery, expert says

[Viggen]

The 15th century Vinland Map, the first known map to show part of America before explorer Christopher Columbus landed on the continent, is almost certainly genuine, a Danish expert said Friday. Controversy has swirled around the map since it came to light in the 1950s, many scholars suspecting it was a hoax meant to prove that Vikings were the first Europeans to land in North America -- a claim confirmed by a 1960 archaeological find...

 

...read the full article at Reuters

[Klingan]

Sounds like it should be genuine, but then again, the other side is not heard in this article. I wonder if they

[sylla]

Sounds like it should be genuine, but then again, the other side is not heard in this article. I wonder if they

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[Klingan]

Sounds like it should be genuine, but then again, the other side is not heard in this article. I wonder if they

[sylla]

Sounds like it should be genuine, but then again, the other side is not heard in this article. I wonder if they

[Klingan]

Point taken; however, we essentially agree; Mr. Larsen is naturally trying to bend the argument to his advantage, but the available evidence against the authenticity of this map is so overwhelming that it can (hardly?; if you like) be seen behind his argumentation, as posted above.

 

True, I apologize for my tendency to argue about minor issues. Anyway, I'd love to see an article written from the other side.

[caesar novus]

trying to dismiss quite hard evidence against the authenticity of the Map:

- the wormholes (presumably other researchers found them incompatible with the book(s) with which the map was bound).

- the anachronic use of titanium in the ink.

- the radiocarbon dating to the 1440s (previous to Columbus but centuries ahead from the Vikings).

- the lack of provenance.

The following 2005/2008 source made me chuckle in a section dismantling the NOVA science TV program attack on the Vinland Map (VM) as science fiction. Nowdays I find NOVA unwatchable due to their endless mangling of science to promote hysterical global warming themes. Anyway, here are other sections re quoted points above. It's not all one sided, as they do mention the map having to be considered guilty until proven innocent (core principle of French/Napoleonic justice?)

 

Painter and Skelton were also among the experts at the British Library (then a part of the British Museum) who examined the map. They were equally skeptical at that time, and became enthusiastic proponents only after the wormholes in the VM, TR, and Speculum were later shown to align.

<...>

Since the writing on the map has been actually chewed through by the bookworms, the hypothetical forger would have had to have acquired live bookworms per Lopez (PVMC, p. 31 n. 1), and placed them together with the freshly drawn map in its original configuration between the SH+TR front cover and the SH in order to generate the aligning wormholes. He or she then unaccountably rebound the VM+TR separately from the SH in order to prevent the alignment of the carefully made wormholes from being noticed except through the impulse purchase of the SH on Marston's part, and then even took the trouble to conceal the aligning holes in the original front cover with a paste-down.

 

It would be far simpler simply to believe that the map is a genuine 15th century production.

<...>

The anatase titanium dioxide particles found on the Vinland map by Walter and Lucy McCrone (1974, 1988, 1998) and by Katherine Brown and Robin Clark (2002) are consistent with naturally occuring anatase particles appearing in kaolin clays per Charles Weaver (1976) and Enver Murad (1997), could have been produced with medieval technology per Jacqueline Olin (2000, 2003), or could even be due to the conservatorial transfer mechanism proposed by James Enterline (2002). Although the unusual VM ink deserves further study and comparison, there is at present no technical reason to reject its purported age.

<...>

the map purports to be a 15th century Swiss production, and not Viking at all, or even Scandinavian.

<...>

Saenger does raise several troubling issues concerning the provenance of the map. However, if the map was indeed stolen from some library before it was purchased by Witten, that would simply mean that Yale is not its rightful owner. It would not reflect on its authenticity per se.

Edited July 23, 2009 by caesar novus

[sylla]

It's not all one sided, as they do mention the map having to be considered guilty until proven innocent (core principle of French/Napoleonic justice?)

Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[JGolomb]

All,

 

Sorry for joining the convo a little late...

 

I wasn't specifically aware of the Vinland map, but I was wondering if this group had seen Marco Polo's "Map with Ship"?

 

Here's an article that compares a number of maps that supposedly present pieces of the Americas before they were "discovered":

http://www.marcopolovoyages.com/LibCongres...rThompson4.html

 

Here's a more detailed look at the Marco Polo maps:

http://www.marcopolovoyages.com/Articles/M...wWorldMaps.html

 

Another famous map called the Waldseemuller map is the first map to use the word America, was published in 1507, but appears to have a pretty distinct and correct (but skewed visually) presentation of the WEST coast of the Americas. Check the bottom left here:

http://www.umc.sunysb.edu/surgery/waldseemuller-loc-big.jpg

 

While there are arguments on both sides, pulling back to look at the bigger picture, it certainly feels like there's enough evidence in aggregate to presume that Christopher Columbus was not the first non-native-American to come across the Americas. Who and when specifically? It's impossible to tell. Either way, Columbus was the first to break the news to the world (though he still thought he'd found the Indies until the day he died).

[JGolomb]

Another famous map called the Waldseemuller map is the first map to use the word America, was published in 1507, but appears to have a pretty distinct and correct (but skewed visually) presentation of the WEST coast of the Americas. Check the bottom left here:

http://www.umc.sunysb.edu/surgery/waldseemuller-loc-big.jpg

 

While there are arguments on both sides, pulling back to look at the bigger picture, it certainly feels like there's enough evidence in aggregate to presume that Christopher Columbus was not the first non-native-American to come across the Americas. Who and when specifically? It's impossible to tell. Either way, Columbus was the first to break the news to the world (though he still thought he'd found the Indies until the day he died).

 

Not that anyone asked, but I think these stories and myths around lost maps and previously undiscovered lands is fascinating and as technology improves, we'll find many modern historical facts exposed as mere myths.

 

There's one reference in here to the previously undiscovered American west coast, but it's a good overview of this famous map.

The map that changed the world

The map represented a remarkable number of historical firsts. In addition to giving America its name, it was also the first map to portray the New World as a separate continent - even though Columbus, Vespucci, and other early explorers would all insist until their dying day that they had reached the far-eastern limits of Asia.

 

The map was the first to suggest the existence of what explorer Ferdinand Magellan would later call the Pacific Ocean, a mysterious decision, in that Europeans, according to the standard history of New World discovery, aren't supposed to have learned about the Pacific until several years later.

[sylla]

Another famous map called the Waldseemuller map is the first map to use the word America, was published in 1507, but appears to have a pretty distinct and correct (but skewed visually) presentation of the WEST coast of the Americas. Check the bottom left here:

http://www.umc.sunysb.edu/surgery/waldseemuller-loc-big.jpg

 

While there are arguments on both sides, pulling back to look at the bigger picture, it certainly feels like there's enough evidence in aggregate to presume that Christopher Columbus was not the first non-native-American to come across the Americas. Who and when specifically? It's impossible to tell. Either way, Columbus was the first to break the news to the world (though he still thought he'd found the Indies until the day he died).

 

Not that anyone asked, but I think these stories and myths around lost maps and previously undiscovered lands is fascinating and as technology improves, we'll find many modern historical facts exposed as mere myths.

 

There's one reference in here to the previously undiscovered American west coast, but it's a good overview of this famous map.

The map that changed the world

The map represented a remarkable number of historical firsts. In addition to giving America its name, it was also the first map to portray the New World as a separate continent - even though Columbus, Vespucci, and other early explorers would all insist until their dying day that they had reached the far-eastern limits of Asia.

 

The map was the first to suggest the existence of what explorer Ferdinand Magellan would later call the Pacific Ocean, a mysterious decision, in that Europeans, according to the standard history of New World discovery, aren't supposed to have learned about the Pacific until several years later.

Latium antiquum a Tiberi Cerceios servatum est m. p. L longitudine: tam tenues primordio imperi fuere radices. colonis saepe mutatis tenuere alii aliis temporibus, Aborigenes, Pelasgi, Arcades, Siculi, Aurunci, Rutuli et ultra Cerceios Volsci, Osci, Ausones, unde nomen Lati processit ad Lirim amnem. in principio est Ostia colonia ab Romano rege deducta, oppidum Laurentum, lucus Iovis Indigetis, amnis Numicius, Ardea a Dana

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla

[JGolomb]

However, some of the authors' statements seems to be a bit too farfetched; for example, geographers had already known for a long time that there was sea (ie. the Pacific Ocean) east to eastern Asia; if the recently discovered lands were to be considered a new continent and the Earth was indeed round, sea ought to be drawn between the land masses.

 

This is a very good point Sylla. However the relative precision of Waldseemullers North and South American west coasts should not have been known at the time. The map, when smoothed to account for perspective, is ridiculously close to correct. I just found one reference that says the map predicts the width of South America at certain latitudes to within 70 miles.

 

In a subsequent map he took out the Pacific Ocean.

 

Here's a nice summary of the mystery and relatively recent findings from the Washington Post. I've bolded some of the highlights.

How was it that a German priest writing in Latin and living in a French city far from the coast became the first person to tell the world that a vast ocean lay to the west of the American continents?

 

That is one of the bigger mysteries in the history of the Renaissance.

 

But it is not the only one involving Martin Waldseemueller, a map-making cleric whose own story is sufficiently obscure that his birth and death dates aren't known for certain.

 

Waldseemueller appears to have also known something about the contours of South America's west coast years before Vasco N

[sylla]

However, some of the authors' statements seems to be a bit too farfetched; for example, geographers had already known for a long time that there was sea (ie. the Pacific Ocean) east to eastern Asia; if the recently discovered lands were to be considered a new continent and the Earth was indeed round, sea ought to be drawn between the land masses.

This is a very good point Sylla. However the relative precision of Waldseemullers North and South American west coasts should not have been known at the time. The map, when smoothed to account for perspective, is ridiculously close to correct. I just found one reference that says the map predicts the width of South America at certain latitudes to within 70 miles.

70 miles?!? Your source is clearly utterly exaggerating; their statements don't resist simple inspection.

 

Please take a second look of the "Pacific Coast" of South America in that map; it's just an irregular hyperbolic curve from the two continuously explored points by then (more or less from modern Rio de Janeiro to Nicaragua).

 

A "strait" was imagined instead of the actual isthmus of Central America... unsurprisingly, at the only unexplored sector of the Caribbean coast.

 

Besides, less than one third of the actual area of South America was drawn; the width is patently wrong!

 

The drawing of South America stops circa latitude 25

Edited October 29, 2009 by sylla

[JGolomb]

However, some of the authors' statements seems to be a bit too farfetched; for example, geographers had already known for a long time that there was sea (ie. the Pacific Ocean) east to eastern Asia; if the recently discovered lands were to be considered a new continent and the Earth was indeed round, sea ought to be drawn between the land masses.

This is a very good point Sylla. However the relative precision of Waldseemullers North and South American west coasts should not have been known at the time. The map, when smoothed to account for perspective, is ridiculously close to correct. I just found one reference that says the map predicts the width of South America at certain latitudes to within 70 miles.

70 miles?!? Your source is clearly utterly exaggerating; their statements don't resist simple inspection.

 

Please take a second look of the "Pacific Coast" of South America in that map; it's just an irregular hyperbolic curve from the two continuously explored points by then (more or less from modern Rio de Janeiro to Nicaragua).

 

A "strait" was imagined instead of the actual isthmus of Central America... at the only unexplored sector of the Caribbean coast.

 

Besides, less than one third of the actual area of South America was drawn; the width is patently wrong!

 

The "ridiculously close to correct relative precision" essentially disappears on a closer examination.

Sylla,

 

I understand your point, though I don't believe it "essentially disappears". Quite frankly, I don't fully understand the science, but here's the full blown analysis referenced in the Post article:

Warping Waldseem

[sylla]

Sylla,

 

I understand your point, though I don't believe it "essentially disappears". Quite frankly, I don't fully understand the science, but here's the full blown analysis referenced in the Post article:

Warping Waldseem

Edited January 1, 2010 by sylla