23-04-2026, 03:53 PM
The McCrone report stated on page 3 "In all probability", the inks used for text and drawing were iron gall inks."
But that is not correct. The instruments described in the report cannot positively identify iron-gall ink (IGI). The X-ray diffraction spectrum can identify particles of crystalline mineral pigments, like azurite, minium, hematite. For substances that are not crystalline -- which is the case of IGI -- they can only tell which chemical elements they contain, but not the substances -- how those elements are combined.
Those instruments only determined that the ink contains iron. It was natural to conclude that it was IGI, because 99.99% of the iron-containing dark ink on vellum documents and manuscripts is IGI, and it does not make sense to write on vellum with any other black ink. People would use vellum when they wanted the document or book to last for centuries, and resist rubbing, humidity, spills; and to make the text relatively tamper-proof. Only IGI would achieve that goal.
But, unfortunately, the VMS is not a "99.99% manuscript". It is a "0.01%" one. And that has led too many experts astray...
In particular the VMS text ink is definitely not IGI.
For one thing, unlike IGI, the VMS ink will come off easily and completely with water. That is clearly visible on the ultraviolet images of f116v, or inside the "ketchup" stain of f103r. In fact it seems to come off even just by rubbing.
But the real evidence is how it looks under infrared. According to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:
And here are clips from the infrared images of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. under light of various wavelengths:
650 nm (red):
[attachment=15280]
700 nm (infrared):
[attachment=15279]
940 nm (infrared):
[attachment=15278]
Thus the text ink on that page becomes transparent and invisible between 700 and 940 nm. It is not IGI, but probably some iron-containing brown mineral pigment like sienna.
The report itself admits that the quire numbers (Sample 19) did not show significant iron contents. Which is not strange: quire numbers, unlike the folio numbers, were only temporary instructions to the bookbinder; and thus were probably made with some other ink, like lampblack (india) ink -- with is much easier to make than IGI, lasts indefinitely in a closed bottle, and is better than IGI for writing on paper.
Another common mis-interpretation of that report is the claim that they determined that all inks and pigments were original from the 1400s.
First, as the report admits, they failed to identify many of the pigments, including the text ink and the green paint that is used on the leaves of most of the plants. (They only determined that it contained copper but was not crystalline, and guessed that it could be some unidentified organic salt of copper.) And they mis-identified others, like a red pigment as "palmierite" (which is an extremely rare colorless mineral, found only around fumaroles in volcanic areas.)
And, for those paints that they did identify, they did not not determine any dates.
All they found is that the pigments that they did identify, like azurite (but not that "palmierite") were available and used in the 1400s. That is, none of the pigments that they could identify was a synthetic pigment that became available only after 1700 (like the titanium white that debunked the Vinland Map).
But all those pigments that they did identify are still available today, and would have been used by a painter or forger at any time before 1911...
All the best, --stolfi
But that is not correct. The instruments described in the report cannot positively identify iron-gall ink (IGI). The X-ray diffraction spectrum can identify particles of crystalline mineral pigments, like azurite, minium, hematite. For substances that are not crystalline -- which is the case of IGI -- they can only tell which chemical elements they contain, but not the substances -- how those elements are combined.
Those instruments only determined that the ink contains iron. It was natural to conclude that it was IGI, because 99.99% of the iron-containing dark ink on vellum documents and manuscripts is IGI, and it does not make sense to write on vellum with any other black ink. People would use vellum when they wanted the document or book to last for centuries, and resist rubbing, humidity, spills; and to make the text relatively tamper-proof. Only IGI would achieve that goal.
But, unfortunately, the VMS is not a "99.99% manuscript". It is a "0.01%" one. And that has led too many experts astray...
In particular the VMS text ink is definitely not IGI.
For one thing, unlike IGI, the VMS ink will come off easily and completely with water. That is clearly visible on the ultraviolet images of f116v, or inside the "ketchup" stain of f103r. In fact it seems to come off even just by rubbing.
But the real evidence is how it looks under infrared. According to You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.:
Quote:According to recent reflectance measurements, iron gall inks absorb IR radiation up to 1200 nm [23] (p. 58) (Additional file 1: Suppl 2),Footnote3 while ochre already become transparent at 850 nm [25] (p. 16). An iron gall ink underdrawing could be thus determined, if the underdrawing lines absorb radiation up to 1200 nm and become invisible in higher wavelengths
And here are clips from the infrared images of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. under light of various wavelengths:
650 nm (red):
[attachment=15280]
700 nm (infrared):
[attachment=15279]
940 nm (infrared):
[attachment=15278]
Thus the text ink on that page becomes transparent and invisible between 700 and 940 nm. It is not IGI, but probably some iron-containing brown mineral pigment like sienna.
The report itself admits that the quire numbers (Sample 19) did not show significant iron contents. Which is not strange: quire numbers, unlike the folio numbers, were only temporary instructions to the bookbinder; and thus were probably made with some other ink, like lampblack (india) ink -- with is much easier to make than IGI, lasts indefinitely in a closed bottle, and is better than IGI for writing on paper.
Another common mis-interpretation of that report is the claim that they determined that all inks and pigments were original from the 1400s.
First, as the report admits, they failed to identify many of the pigments, including the text ink and the green paint that is used on the leaves of most of the plants. (They only determined that it contained copper but was not crystalline, and guessed that it could be some unidentified organic salt of copper.) And they mis-identified others, like a red pigment as "palmierite" (which is an extremely rare colorless mineral, found only around fumaroles in volcanic areas.)
And, for those paints that they did identify, they did not not determine any dates.
All they found is that the pigments that they did identify, like azurite (but not that "palmierite") were available and used in the 1400s. That is, none of the pigments that they could identify was a synthetic pigment that became available only after 1700 (like the titanium white that debunked the Vinland Map).
But all those pigments that they did identify are still available today, and would have been used by a painter or forger at any time before 1911...
All the best, --stolfi
