I doubt it's worth splitting off into another thread, but having brought it up I wanted to follow up on the scanning auger microscope dating technique. I was able to obtain a PDF of the original paper, which says this:
"Numerous problems were encountered in preparation of the documents for SAM analysis. Large bound documents took more than a week to degas to 1 X 10"7 torr. This necessitated de-gassing all documents in advance and transporting them to the test site under vacuum. The high degree of vacuum necessary for SAM produced significant glue embrittlement, resulting in some binder damage. In addition, the large size of many of the documents precluded measurements in all but a very few
SAM instruments.
"To generate a sufficiently accurate regression expression that would be applicable to the general case will require far more truly dated samples, particularly on vellum and parchment."
So...possible damage to the document, probable need to ship the document somewhere well off-campus, concerns about accuracy for vellum.
Here's what Joe Nickell's _Detecting Forgery_ has to say about the technique (which is also not encouraging :-<):
Scanning auger microscopy
A relatively new technique to determine the age of ink was developed by Roderick J. McNeil, an analytical biochemist who is director of his own Rocky Mountain Research Laboratories in Polson, Montana. The technique grew out of McNeil's interest in the Shroud of Turin (which he reportedly believes genuine, despite the scientific tests to the contrary), and is based on the concept that "the migration of ions from the ink is directly proportional to time."55
McNeil's technique, "scanning auger microscopy" (SAM) measures the ion diffusion of certain inks-especially iron-gallotannate ink-in paper and parchment. This migration of ions is extremely minute, only 1/2,000 of an inch in a thousand years,56 yet SAM is reputedly highly accurate. 57 Some consider the technique virtually infallible and point out that it succeeded in proving Hofmann's "The Oath of a Freeman" was a forgery when other analyses indicated that the ink was appropriately 01d.58
McNeil himself states:
The majority of documents submitted to the author are from the American revolutionary-constitutional period, 1760-1820, and a surprising number of forgeries have been detected. Of the 122 documents submitted from this time period, twenty six were forgeries. While these might have been detected by some other subjective technique, all of these documents had been authenticated by handwriting analysis or paper or historical analysis, or all three. One of the most surprising aspects of this work to date has been the discovery of readily available paper from the late 1600s to date. Certainly paper of the proper date is readily available to the well informed forger, making paper dating a poor choice in document authentication. 59
Drawbacks to the techniques are that it is "extremely costly" and that-according to document examiner George J. Throckmorton-"few laboratories in the United States have the necessary equipment, and only McNeil is considered an expert in the technique."60 Also, that SAM is not infallible is indicated by the "draft" of the Gettysburg Address owned by Lloyd Ostendor£
According to NcNeil's report to Ostendorf, "the body of the document showed a median age of 1869, plus or minus 10 years, based on seven samples measured in triplicate." (The inscription on the verso showed a slightly later median age, 1875, plus or minus fifteen years, probably because of sampling problems.) McNeil stated: "My overall conclusion regarding the document is that it is genuine; that is, that it was created in the time period purported by the document." He added, "Obviously, this type of testing can draw no conclusions about who created the document, only when it was created."61 Nevertheless, Ostendorf concluded that McNeil's tests proved the document genuine, since nineteenth-century forgers lacked access to the Hay copy (not released until 1916) to which the Ostendorf document bears a most suspicious resemblance.
Actually, however, the handwriting evidence is decisive. A noted forensic document examiner, Maureen Casey Owens, who had twenty-five years' experience as an expert with the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory, stated, "The uncanny similarity in handwriting characteristics is evident not only in form and proportions, but also particularly significant in writing movement, beginnings, endings, and pen emphasis throughout the writings. Even margins and line spacings are close." She concluded: "These similarities are too striking to be coincidence and are highly suggestive of simulation. "62
Exactly where McNeil's technique failed remains to be determined. Perhaps the faulty SAM date had something to do with the suspicious ultraviolet fluorescence of the paper (mentioned in earlier chapters); that is, possibly some artificial aging technique was employed by the forger. As McNeil later told the Manuscript Society News (somewhat lamely): "It is unfortunate that I had a situation before me where there was no adequate coordination of all the information. I did not have access to other information I wish I had such as that the paper fluoresced. Dr. Joe Nickell was good enough to contact me on his own about this. Overall, I stand behind my results. I am fairly confident the paper is from the right period."63 Actually, the paper is from approximately the right period, but the ink was clearly applied in this century-probably as recently as the document's nonexistent provenance suggests.
The erroneous SAM date might also have been in part because of difficulties McNeil had in performing the tests. As he reported to Ostendorf: "Since you desired that the document not be harmed in any way, sampling for Scanning Auger Microscopy (SAM) was quite difficult due to grounding problems. The sample was rolled around a two inch diameter metal bar and rotated in sequents to locate adequate concentrations of ink for sampling." Also, he reported, "a very high angle of incidence relative to the surface had to be maintained to minimize noise and optimize grounding." 64
This one error should not cause us to dismiss McNeil's scanning auger microscopy dating method. Unfortunately, current evidence shows he also obtained an erroneous date (1921, plus or minus 12 years) for the forged Jack the Ripper diary, one potential problem having been the diary's unsized (and thus extra absorbent) paper.65 In contrast, a British examiner used the relatively simple ink-solubility test to determine that the ink was barely dry on the pages.66
Such errors were almost inevitable-even predictable. As James Gilreath of the Library of Congress' Rare Book and Special Collections Division asked in his book The judgment of Experts (which is about Hofmann's "The Oath of a Freeman"): "Who can doubt that an enterprising and knowledgeable (or even lucky) forger might beat the McNeil test at some time in the future?"67 As Gilreath told Ostendorf: "McNeil's test, like every other analysis, must be used in conjunction with the full range of information about the document, and considered with a clear and open understanding of the manuscript's provenance."68
"Numerous problems were encountered in preparation of the documents for SAM analysis. Large bound documents took more than a week to degas to 1 X 10"7 torr. This necessitated de-gassing all documents in advance and transporting them to the test site under vacuum. The high degree of vacuum necessary for SAM produced significant glue embrittlement, resulting in some binder damage. In addition, the large size of many of the documents precluded measurements in all but a very few
SAM instruments.
"To generate a sufficiently accurate regression expression that would be applicable to the general case will require far more truly dated samples, particularly on vellum and parchment."
So...possible damage to the document, probable need to ship the document somewhere well off-campus, concerns about accuracy for vellum.
Here's what Joe Nickell's _Detecting Forgery_ has to say about the technique (which is also not encouraging :-<):
Scanning auger microscopy
A relatively new technique to determine the age of ink was developed by Roderick J. McNeil, an analytical biochemist who is director of his own Rocky Mountain Research Laboratories in Polson, Montana. The technique grew out of McNeil's interest in the Shroud of Turin (which he reportedly believes genuine, despite the scientific tests to the contrary), and is based on the concept that "the migration of ions from the ink is directly proportional to time."55
McNeil's technique, "scanning auger microscopy" (SAM) measures the ion diffusion of certain inks-especially iron-gallotannate ink-in paper and parchment. This migration of ions is extremely minute, only 1/2,000 of an inch in a thousand years,56 yet SAM is reputedly highly accurate. 57 Some consider the technique virtually infallible and point out that it succeeded in proving Hofmann's "The Oath of a Freeman" was a forgery when other analyses indicated that the ink was appropriately 01d.58
McNeil himself states:
The majority of documents submitted to the author are from the American revolutionary-constitutional period, 1760-1820, and a surprising number of forgeries have been detected. Of the 122 documents submitted from this time period, twenty six were forgeries. While these might have been detected by some other subjective technique, all of these documents had been authenticated by handwriting analysis or paper or historical analysis, or all three. One of the most surprising aspects of this work to date has been the discovery of readily available paper from the late 1600s to date. Certainly paper of the proper date is readily available to the well informed forger, making paper dating a poor choice in document authentication. 59
Drawbacks to the techniques are that it is "extremely costly" and that-according to document examiner George J. Throckmorton-"few laboratories in the United States have the necessary equipment, and only McNeil is considered an expert in the technique."60 Also, that SAM is not infallible is indicated by the "draft" of the Gettysburg Address owned by Lloyd Ostendor£
According to NcNeil's report to Ostendorf, "the body of the document showed a median age of 1869, plus or minus 10 years, based on seven samples measured in triplicate." (The inscription on the verso showed a slightly later median age, 1875, plus or minus fifteen years, probably because of sampling problems.) McNeil stated: "My overall conclusion regarding the document is that it is genuine; that is, that it was created in the time period purported by the document." He added, "Obviously, this type of testing can draw no conclusions about who created the document, only when it was created."61 Nevertheless, Ostendorf concluded that McNeil's tests proved the document genuine, since nineteenth-century forgers lacked access to the Hay copy (not released until 1916) to which the Ostendorf document bears a most suspicious resemblance.
Actually, however, the handwriting evidence is decisive. A noted forensic document examiner, Maureen Casey Owens, who had twenty-five years' experience as an expert with the Chicago Police Crime Laboratory, stated, "The uncanny similarity in handwriting characteristics is evident not only in form and proportions, but also particularly significant in writing movement, beginnings, endings, and pen emphasis throughout the writings. Even margins and line spacings are close." She concluded: "These similarities are too striking to be coincidence and are highly suggestive of simulation. "62
Exactly where McNeil's technique failed remains to be determined. Perhaps the faulty SAM date had something to do with the suspicious ultraviolet fluorescence of the paper (mentioned in earlier chapters); that is, possibly some artificial aging technique was employed by the forger. As McNeil later told the Manuscript Society News (somewhat lamely): "It is unfortunate that I had a situation before me where there was no adequate coordination of all the information. I did not have access to other information I wish I had such as that the paper fluoresced. Dr. Joe Nickell was good enough to contact me on his own about this. Overall, I stand behind my results. I am fairly confident the paper is from the right period."63 Actually, the paper is from approximately the right period, but the ink was clearly applied in this century-probably as recently as the document's nonexistent provenance suggests.
The erroneous SAM date might also have been in part because of difficulties McNeil had in performing the tests. As he reported to Ostendorf: "Since you desired that the document not be harmed in any way, sampling for Scanning Auger Microscopy (SAM) was quite difficult due to grounding problems. The sample was rolled around a two inch diameter metal bar and rotated in sequents to locate adequate concentrations of ink for sampling." Also, he reported, "a very high angle of incidence relative to the surface had to be maintained to minimize noise and optimize grounding." 64
This one error should not cause us to dismiss McNeil's scanning auger microscopy dating method. Unfortunately, current evidence shows he also obtained an erroneous date (1921, plus or minus 12 years) for the forged Jack the Ripper diary, one potential problem having been the diary's unsized (and thus extra absorbent) paper.65 In contrast, a British examiner used the relatively simple ink-solubility test to determine that the ink was barely dry on the pages.66
Such errors were almost inevitable-even predictable. As James Gilreath of the Library of Congress' Rare Book and Special Collections Division asked in his book The judgment of Experts (which is about Hofmann's "The Oath of a Freeman"): "Who can doubt that an enterprising and knowledgeable (or even lucky) forger might beat the McNeil test at some time in the future?"67 As Gilreath told Ostendorf: "McNeil's test, like every other analysis, must be used in conjunction with the full range of information about the document, and considered with a clear and open understanding of the manuscript's provenance."68
![[+]](https://www.voynich.ninja/images/collapse_collapsed.png)