Vinland map, chart of Norse exploration of Americas, "proved" fake

Discuss

12 Responses to “Vinland map, chart of Norse exploration of Americas, "proved" fake”

  1. John Cattley says:

    This does not seem like a new controversy. This map has been questioned for years. I’d enjoy reading the new evidence if this weren’t paywalled.

    • MonkeyBoy says:

       You can read the Daily Mail take on it keeping in mind that that source is the Daily Fail.

      At least the squabbles over the map only involve academic reputations not religion (modulo issues of Columbus or Viking worship). I wish things were this rational with the obviously fake Shroud of Turin and various Middle East “discoveries”.

  2. David Seaver says:

    Actually, there have been several takedowns of the Vinland Map in the last couple of decades, including the late Walter McCrone’s microanalysis that found synthetic anatase, a 19th Century (or later) pigment. As with his work on the Turin Shroud, a lot of special pleading sprang up to “explain” the unwanted facts away. Denials of science can happen in academia as readily as on rural school boards.

  3. carlogesualdodivenosa says:

    That Vinland shape… it reminds me of something…

  4. Navin_Johnson says:

    experts dated the map to the mid-15th century, placing it a good 50 years before the Santa Mariá’s 1492 journey. But it was always controversial, thanks to its sudden appearance in the historical record.

    I have always thought that historians considered this map suspect, so not really a surprise. Should be pointed out that the Norse were here hundreds of years earlier than Columbus map, or no map:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Anse_aux_Meadows

  5. Tchoutoye says:

    If there was no map on the parchment originally, how can Floyd tell it’s the same piece of parchment mentioned in in 1892 and 1926?
    And why would the parchment be put on display at an event commemorating Columbus’ discovery of the Americas if there was no map of Canada on it?

    • JP says:

      The proof of forgery is principally based upon the fact that the forger made use of a 1782 engraving. My argument with regard to the parchment is that it formed part of the codex when one of the descriptions was written – which makes it rather strange that the description should make no reference to the presence of a map. My reasons for holding that the parchment was present are difficult to summarise. Basically, I argue that the inscription on the back of the map has been altered by the forger, and that the writer of the description saw this line of text in its original, unaltered state.

  6. JP says:

     The new evidence resolves the mystery of the pre-1957 provenance of the medieval documents associated with the map: we now know for certain that they came from Zaragoza Cathedral Library. The evidence also reveals that the forger of the map, in attempting to imitate a genuine medieval map of 1436, blundered by using a redrawn copy from 1782 which contains inadvertent errors. He copied these errors. A whole lot of time and money would have been saved if this had been noticed before.

  7. Dave Faris says:

    Here’s a documentary made aired on PBS a few years ago about the Vinland Map. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6_NLACcuAE

  8. Petzl says:

    Why even cite this if it’s behind a paywall?

  9. alanborky says:

    Over the last few years alone I’ve read about people whose ashtrays and plant pots which’d been in their families for countless generations turning out to be Ming dynasty pottery worth millions.

    I’ve read about paintings which’ve sat on public library walls or provincial churches for centuries turning out to be lost masterpieces.

    And just recently I read about a stone which’d sat in someone’s garden for countless decades if not centuries turning out to be a priceless ancient temple stone.

    On the basis of the logic of this piece the people who bought these objects for huge sums must be deluded because here where these objects out on open display for all the world to see for hundreds of years but because no one noticed they were Ming that means they can’t be Ming.

Leave a Reply