sci.archaeology
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Anatase

Subject: Re: Anatase
From: "Peter Alaca"
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:40:57 +0100
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
bernard wrote:
news:1142176238.387320.251490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Peter Alaca wrote:
bernard wrote:
news:1142148788.304576.125960@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Peter Alaca wrote:
bernard wrote:
Peter Alaca wrote:
bernard wrote:
Peter Alaca wrote:
bernard wrote:
prd wrote:
bernard   . . . :
Alan Crozier wrote:

Alan, I had hoped that I would not reopen the debate on the
Vinland Map as it had developed into a heated row. I was
reporting  work on Romano-British Paint not ink which may or
may not be  500 plus years old.

Bullshit. The use of anatase 500 years ago is nothing unusual
or peculiar. Anyone can read what you originally wrote, they
would not be wrong to assume you were alluding to the Vinland
Map.

Kenneth Towe's work on the Vinland ink is published in the
Journal "Analytical Chemistry":

K.M. Towe, Anal.Chem. 2004, 76, 863.

As I no longer have easy access to academic libraries, I
have not read the paper, I have read an excellent abstract
and it is pretty convincing.

As the subject seems to be emotive, I don't want to get
involved. Yale University might, they paid $1 million
dollars for the map in 1957.

The papers are on the Internet, freely accessed.
Its not a long paper, surely even you could read it.

Why the abuse?  I did not contribute to the Vinland map
discussion because I don't know much about it and had no
intention of starting it up again. I was reporting on news
about Romano-British paint. [..]

But what then is so special about Roman anatase
that you thought it worth posting here?
My first though was also 'there we go again'
No reason for abuse though.

The results of the analysis of Romano-British Paint seemed to be
of interest to archaeologists. I merely provided an abstract of
the pa and offered no personal opinion.

But is anatase the only component of Roman paint?

The fact that the demon word anatase appeared raised
howls of protest.

Not the word anatase but your implicit expressed
personal opinion that the Roman paint is relevant
for the VM discussion.
Afterall you started with "The presence of anatase
in the ink on the Vinland map was a factor in the
recent discussion on this topic in the Group."

Anatase was a factor in the recent discussion and in the two
relevant papers in Analytical Chemistry.

Then you contradict yourself because you said  earlier
"I did not contribute to the Vinland map discussion"

You are right. I made comments objecting to personal abuse in a
scientific discussion.

I did not offer any opinion on whether or not the Vinland map was
genuine.

You are right, you offered no explicit opinion,
in fact you offered nothing new to the discussion.
But by starting this thread with:
  " The presence of anatase in the ink on the Vinland
    map was a factor in the recent discussion on this
    topic in the Group. "
you entered the discussion, probably with the believe
that you offered something new. Or was there some
other reason? An attempt to disturb the peace perhaps?

It seems that my choice of title "Anatase" created the furore. I was
writing about Roman-British paint and plaster.

No, it was not the title. It was your first sentence.

--
p.a.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>