Material Evidence: Cahill (1995)

6). REPORT 1995

Cahill compares McCrone's 1974 study with his own in 1987.
Cahill, T, A, and Kusko, Bruce H., 1995 Compositional and structural studies of the Vinland Map and Tartar Relation in. The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation, Skelton, R. A. , Marston, T. E. and Painter, G. E., Yale University Press, New Haven, xxix-xxxix.

Diffraction Small
McCrone’s microscope shows the titanium to be present as anatase.


Cahill presents again his measurement of titanium content (using PIXE) and criticizes McCrone's measurement of anatase (using microscopy). In 1987 Cahill stated that "our work argues strongly against the specific McCrone Associates proof that the map is fraudulent". Here he adds that "this conclusion is actually strengthened".


  • Cahill faults McCrone:
    • for not using microphotography,
    • for only examining a minute and non-representative sample,
    • for lack of experience in analyzing manuscripts,
    • for intending to sample crystals responsible for the yellow coloration
    • for failing to sample crystals responsible for the yellow coloration,
    • for confusing data and interpretation, etc., etc.
  • He sees the modern anatase found by McCrone, as "more likely to represent modern contamination".

McCrone’s microscope shows that the anatase was made in modern times.


  • McCrone identified modern anatase. Its presence proves the VM to be modern. None of Cahill's criticism invalidates McCrone's identification.
  • McCrone only detected modern anatase in the yellow ink. It cannot be contamination. If contamination, anatase would be detected everywhere.


  • What is the crucial finding that determines the status of the VM?
  • What would Cahill need to show to invalidate McCrone's conclusion that the VM is modern?
  • Do the different titanium contents, measured by McCrone and Cahill, affect the status of the VM?