PDA

View Full Version : Da Vinci and the Shroud of Turin



peledre
2010-Feb-26, 07:47 PM
Has anyone else heard of this theory? It basically goes like this, when carbon dating was done on the Shroud it was dated to 1260-1390. Given that we know it is a forgery, and given that it appears to be a very convincing, anatomically accurate forgery, who would've had the technical capability to create it? Da Vinci had an advanced knowledge of anatomy from his cadaver research, he was aware of optics and the phenomenon of camera obscura, and he had a working relationship with the Savoys, owners of the Shroud.

The way it could've been created is to put a crucified body on the exterior of a camera obscura mechanism, and to soak the cloth in a light sensitive chemical. This process essentially turns the cloth into a gigantic negative. This is why the image is much more clear when viewed as a negative photograph, because it's actually the positive image.

What is less clear is if Da Vinci had knowledge of light-fixing chemicals and silver sulfates.

There was a long period of over 50 years in the late 15th century when the Turin Shroud went "underground" only to reappear as the more convincing version we now see.

I find this idea pretty intriguing, anyone else?

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-26, 07:55 PM
Has anyone else heard of this theory? It basically goes like this, when carbon dating was done on the Shroud it was dated to 1260-1390.
But; because it was involved in a fire in that time frame, the age that was determined is questionable.


Given that we know it is a forgery
Do we know that?
I know a lot of tests were inconclusive, and had factors that made them questionable, but I've never heard that it's been proven to be a fake.
Now, if you speak likelyhood, then I'm of no opinion.


I find this idea pretty intriguing, anyone else?
I've seen a show about them re-creating that in various ways. Unfortunately, I can't remember what the outcomes were.

grant hutchison
2010-Feb-26, 08:00 PM
I think this was first widely publicized in the 90s with Picknett and Prince's book, Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?, though (IIRC) the idea originated with an American artist called Lillian Schwartz. The UK's Channel Five made a documentary on the topic last year.

Grant Hutchison

peledre
2010-Feb-26, 08:08 PM
But; because it was involved in a fire in that time frame, the age that was determined is questionable.


Do we know that?
I know a lot of tests were inconclusive, and had factors that made them questionable, but I've never heard that it's been proven to be a fake.
Now, if you speak likelyhood, then I'm of no opinion.

Three independent tests were done by three different labs that all put it in the 1260-1390 range, I don't know how much more definitive that can be.

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-26, 08:12 PM
Three independent tests were done by three different labs that all put it in the 1260-1390 range, I don't know how much more definitive that can be.
It wasn't the question of the test, is was the question that the smoke and fire damage introduced into the shroud was what was being measured.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-26, 09:23 PM
It wasn't the question of the test, is was the question that the smoke and fire damage introduced into the shroud was what was being measured.
Hmmm, something tells me the laboratories in question would have taken the fire traces into consideration, even if they didn't read BAUT for expert advice first.

Holy relics were a big money machine in the Middle Ages, not for selling but for attracting pilgrims. Most relics we know of today are fakes. E.g., some historians say if you added up all the known alleged pieces of the cross acquired during the Crusades, you could build a three story house and a barn to go with it.

Whether or not the shroud is really from Leonardo's* time (i.e. during the exact years he was a productive artist) is very uncertain. Whether or not he himself might have been involved in producing the it is wild speculation. Very un-BAUT-esque.

Forgers are cheaper by the dozen and can be extremely inventive when it comes to parting a fool from his money. Pinning this on Leonardo without any proof is about the same as saying "those lights had to be an UFO, what else could they have been?"



* His name was Leonardo. Vinci was the name of the city he came from, hence "da Vinci." Da Vinci is not his family name, or his name at all. There is another artist named Pierino da Vinci, who -- surprise, surprise -- was also from Vinci. No relationship, just the same home town. So you ask, what was his full name? Simple: Leonardo.

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-26, 09:29 PM
Hmmm, something tells me the laboratories in question would have taken the fire traces into consideration..
Well; this is coming from older recollections, so maybe there's been ways to accomplish this since then.

Holy relics were a big money machine in the Middle Ages, not for selling but for attracting pilgrims. Most relics we know of today are fakes.
Yep; But it probably doesn't really matter much to some people. Like the eBay cheese sandwich, If they want to believe, they will.

Fazor
2010-Feb-26, 09:30 PM
Hmmm, something tells me the laboratories in question would have taken the fire traces into consideration, even if they didn't read BAUT for expert advice first.


It's not a question of them taking it into consideration, as they certainly did. They were unable, however, to ensure that their sample was accurate and untainted by the fire. They are the ones that admitted that fact.

peledre
2010-Feb-26, 10:01 PM
Hmmm, something tells me the laboratories in question would have taken the fire traces into consideration, even if they didn't read BAUT for expert advice first.

Holy relics were a big money machine in the Middle Ages, not for selling but for attracting pilgrims. Most relics we know of today are fakes. E.g., some historians say if you added up all the known alleged pieces of the cross acquired during the Crusades, you could build a three story house and a barn to go with it.

Whether or not the shroud is really from Leonardo's* time (i.e. during the exact years he was a productive artist) is very uncertain. Whether or not he himself might have been involved in producing the it is wild speculation. Very un-BAUT-esque.

Forgers are cheaper by the dozen and can be extremely inventive when it comes to parting a fool from his money. Pinning this on Leonardo without any proof is about the same as saying "those lights had to be an UFO, what else could they have been?"



* His name was Leonardo. Vinci was the name of the city he came from, hence "da Vinci." Da Vinci is not his family name, or his name at all. There is another artist named Pierino da Vinci, who -- surprise, surprise -- was also from Vinci. No relationship, just the same home town. So you ask, what was his full name? Simple: Leonardo.
I understand that, he is colloquially referred to as Da Vinci.

If you start with the assumption that it is fake one is naturally led to the question of who faked it, which is I think a far more interesting subject than it's supposed divinity.

Fazor
2010-Feb-26, 10:04 PM
I'm pretty sure it was detailed in one of the specials I saw on the shroud in the past, but I know they talked about the possibility of using a 'camera obscura', so they'd surely have addressed this:

If it was faked using this method, should we be able to find traces of the photosensitive and fixing chemicals on the shroud?

peledre
2010-Feb-26, 10:29 PM
I'm pretty sure it was detailed in one of the specials I saw on the shroud in the past, but I know they talked about the possibility of using a 'camera obscura', so they'd surely have addressed this:

If it was faked using this method, should we be able to find traces of the photosensitive and fixing chemicals on the shroud?

If the shroud is ever scientifically tested again they would want to look for traces of silver sulfates.

NEOWatcher
2010-Feb-26, 10:43 PM
If the shroud is ever scientifically tested again they would want to look for traces of silver sulfates.
The show I saw tried to duplicate the process, but I cant recall the outcome.
If I remember right, the image was too spread out (but that could have been a different process - they tried a few different processes)

Gillianren
2010-Feb-27, 02:03 AM
I understand that, he is colloquially referred to as Da Vinci.

So? It's still wrong, and I, for one, would like the thread title corrected.


If you start with the assumption that it is fake one is naturally led to the question of who faked it, which is I think a far more interesting subject than it's supposed divinity.

Well, yes, but I feel that the assumption that we'd have heard of the forger is an unfounded one. Doubtless it was someone forging away in obscurity, like so many other forgers of relics. I mean, the True Cross ones only needed a bit of wood. You'd be amazed at the ingenuity shown by a lot of others.

tashirosgt
2010-Feb-27, 02:30 AM
To answer the original post ("Has anyone heard of this theory?"), there was a book written that proposed it: http://www.picknettprince.com/home.htm

hhEb09'1
2010-Feb-27, 02:38 AM
So? It's still wrong, and I, for one, would like the thread title corrected.I dunno, you want "The Leonardo Code" too? :)

The Leonardo wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci)says his birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci", or "Leonardo, (son) of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci". It's a lot like MacArthur meaning "Son of Arthur", right? So, it's the inchoate last name, at least, no?

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-27, 03:03 AM
... wikipedia article says ...
[cough, cough]


... So, it's the inchoate last name, at least, no?
Nope.

Most people didn't have last names at the time, at least not in the sense that we understand today. Giving him one now is a bogus modern falsification.

Michelangelo is "actually" Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, but don't bother trying to ask to see the Simoni paintings at the Louvre. Art historians do often refer to him as Michelangelo Buonarroti.

Art historians call Leonardo Leonardo or Leonardo da Vinci, but not Da Vinci. If he had stayed in Vinci, nobody would have called him "da Vinci." Maybe just "Our boy Lenny."

As for the Code, Leonardo and/or da Vinci: you can keep both. ;)

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-27, 03:14 AM
Addition:

In quoting the wikipedia article, you left out: "Leonardo had no surname in the modern sense, "da Vinci" simply meaning "of Vinci."

So there. ;)

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-27, 03:28 AM
Addition:

In quoting the wikipedia article, you left out: "Leonardo had no surname in the modern sense, "da Vinci" simply meaning "of Vinci."

So there. ;)

My last name is DuBach. That's technically "Of Bach", I think.

There's lots of other surnames structured in the same way, yet they're still considered last names.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-27, 03:35 AM
My last name is DuBach. That's technically "Of Bach", I think.

There's lots of other surnames structured in the same way, yet they're still considered last names.
Yes. Today. And basically since the early to mid 19th century, depending on location.

But not in the 15th century.

I doubt anybody would refer to Jesus as "Mr. of Nazareth."

hhEb09'1
2010-Feb-27, 03:38 AM
[cough, cough]
What you got? :)
Art historians call Leonardo Leonardo or Leonardo da Vinci, but not Da Vinci. I did a google of the Louvre, and the first page (http://www.louvre.fr/llv/oeuvres/detail_notice.jsp?CONTENT<>cnt_id=10134198673225670&CURRENT_LLV_NOTICE<>cnt_id=10134198673225670&FOLDER<>folder_id=9852723696500780&fromDept=true&baseIndex=12&bmUID=1189640012347&bmLocale=en) I brought up had this:
This drapery entered the Louvre under the name of Dürer. It is thought to be linked to Da Vinci's preparations for the figure of the Virgin in the Uffizi Annunciation, as is the drawing in the former Ganay collection (Louvre, RF 41904) and another study of a seated figure in the Uffizi (Florence).
Addition:

In quoting the wikipedia article, you left out: "Leonardo had no surname in the modern sense, "da Vinci" simply meaning "of Vinci."

So there. ;)
What does wikipedia know? :)

But everyone knows that anyway, that's not the issue here.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-27, 03:38 AM
That's kind of because "of Nazareth" is translated. When it's untranslated, we're much quicker at snapping it up because it's too exotic to sound weird.

Fazor
2010-Feb-27, 03:40 AM
So Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" is really titled after a town, rather than the artist? :think:

;)

Chuck
2010-Feb-27, 03:49 AM
He was originally from Ireland and named Lee O'Nardo.

hhEb09'1
2010-Feb-27, 03:54 AM
Michelangelo is "actually" Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni, but don't bother trying to ask to see the Simoni paintings at the Louvre. Art historians do often refer to him as Michelangelo Buonarroti.I wonder what the Medicis called him. :)

hhEb09'1
2010-Feb-27, 03:56 AM
So Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" is really titled after a town, rather than the artist? "Da" is not part of the town :)

Gillianren
2010-Feb-27, 04:00 AM
I dunno, you want "The Leonardo Code" too? :)

Yes in the sense that it's another thing he got wrong. No in the sense of "Don't make me read it! Please!"


The Leonardo wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_da_Vinci)says his birth name was "Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci", or "Leonardo, (son) of (Mes)ser Piero from Vinci". It's a lot like MacArthur meaning "Son of Arthur", right? So, it's the inchoate last name, at least, no?

Well, and my own last name is Nelson. But however many generations back, it was just some guy whose father was named Nels. (Well, not, because it's the Americanized version and not the Danish. But yeah.)

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-27, 04:02 AM
I wonder what the Medicis called him. :)
Probably "that guy who costs us so much money."

Whatever, Lorenzo and Giuliano each got a nice tomb from him. ;)

DonM435
2010-Feb-27, 05:55 AM
Leonardo is often implicated in shroud forgery theories because (it is argued) whoever did it well enough to fool people for centuries would have to be someone who knew both science (photochemistry and anatomy) and art quite well. Guess who is then the prime suspect.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-27, 08:21 AM
Leonardo is often implicated in shroud forgery theories because (it is argued) whoever did it well enough to fool people for centuries would have to be someone who knew both science (photochemistry and anatomy) and art quite well. Guess who is then the prime suspect.

Still doesn't wash for me. It's an impressive forgery, I grant you, but I think it's more the sort of thinking that drives all those "George Washington slept here" signs or what have you. Isn't it just cooler if it was Leonardo?

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-27, 08:37 AM
Holy relics were a big money machine in the Middle Ages, not for selling but for attracting pilgrims. Most relics we know of today are fakes. E.g., some historians say if you added up all the known alleged pieces of the cross acquired during the Crusades, you could build a three story house and a barn to go with it.
At one time, at least 7 churches in Europe had the skull of Jesus' grandmother as a Vatican authorized relic.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-27, 08:59 AM
Well, and my own last name is Nelson. But however many generations back, it was just some guy whose father was named Nels. (Well, not, because it's the Americanized version and not the Danish. But yeah.)
So it could have been Nils or Nels or Niels (but not Neils) as it was likely before they invented spelling.

AndreasJ
2010-Feb-27, 10:06 AM
I doubt anybody would refer to Jesus as "Mr. of Nazareth."
He is sometimes refered to as "the Nazarene" (which amounts to the same thing). But it's still not a surname in the modern sense.


(As for art historians, they usually refer to Doménikos Theotokópoulos as "El Greco", so they're hardly paragons on consistency in this regard!)

AndreasJ
2010-Feb-27, 10:08 AM
So it could have been Nils or Nels or Niels (but not Neils) as it was likely before they invented spelling.

I'm not entirely sure, but I believe the Danes (like us Swedes) largely standardized spelling before surnames were widely adopted among the lower classes (which is from where surnames in -son normally come).

Gillianren
2010-Feb-27, 10:30 AM
So it could have been Nils or Nels or Niels (but not Neils) as it was likely before they invented spelling.

I'll admit that I'd have to look up exact dates, but the immigrant ancestor of mine who bore the name (and I know he changed it when he got here, because family history records his shedding his Danishness as soon as he could) is also said by family tradition--I think it's undocumented, though I'm not sure--to have married Robert E. Lee's niece. 1870s, maybe? But of course, how long before then the name was in the family, I do not know. I'm not one of our family genealogists.

Lianachan
2010-Feb-27, 11:41 AM
At one time, at least 7 churches in Europe had the skull of Jesus' grandmother as a Vatican authorized relic.

Colum Cille apparently had dozens of fingers, too.

Lianachan
2010-Feb-27, 11:51 AM
My last name is DuBach. That's technically "Of Bach", I think.

There's lots of other surnames structured in the same way, yet they're still considered last names.

When I saw DuBach, I immediately read it as Dubach. This could be made sense of from the Celtic language branch (particularly the Brythonic strand) as meaning either a black place, or somebody from a black place. I could, for example, quite cheerfully accept that as a viable Pictish word.

Not saying that's the derivation of your name, in the slightest, just mentioning in case it is at all interesting.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-27, 02:48 PM
When I saw DuBach, I immediately read it as Dubach. This could be made sense of from the Celtic language branch (particularly the Brythonic strand) as meaning either a black place, or somebody from a black place. I could, for example, quite cheerfully accept that as a viable Pictish word.

Not saying that's the derivation of your name, in the slightest, just mentioning in case it is at all interesting.

Naw, it's not Pictish (at least as far as I know), but that is interesting. A black place, huh? That fits. :D

peledre
2010-Feb-27, 03:59 PM
So? It's still wrong, and I, for one, would like the thread title corrected.

Settle down Alice, he's Leonardo Da Vinci, right or wrong, and whether you like it or not. We tend to anglicize things around here. How do you think Dutch striker Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink feels? ;)

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/01_wk4/Venne280107PA_228x385.jpg



Well, yes, but I feel that the assumption that we'd have heard of the forger is an unfounded one. Doubtless it was someone forging away in obscurity, like so many other forgers of relics. I mean, the True Cross ones only needed a bit of wood. You'd be amazed at the ingenuity shown by a lot of others.

Getting back to the question at hand, who could've forged it? If you start with the assumption that it's the first Renaissance photograph (which I think based on the evidence is the most likely way it was produced), there are a really limited number of people with the skills, motivation, and proximity to be able to produce it.

The knowledge of anatomy demonstrated in the Shroud is extremely advanced for the 15th century. If you look at most of the contemporary depictions of a crucified Christ at that time, you'll see nail holes in the palms of his hands. In the Shroud the nail holes appear in the wrist area (which we now know is the way the Romans did it, as the palm wouldn't be able to support the weight of the crucified body). We know that Leonardo was one of the first Europeans to dissect bodies to try and understand the function and form of the underlying structures.

There isn't any one piece of evidence that points directly to Leonardo, but there wouldn't have been many people capable of doing it.

Chipping off an old piece of wood, throwing some blood on it and calling it part of the true cross is a much easier enterprise than creating a photograph in the 15th century.

If I was a police detective he would be my prime suspect.

Disinfo Agent
2010-Feb-27, 04:10 PM
[...] when carbon dating was done on the Shroud it was dated to 1260-1390.Leonardo's lifetime fell out of that range (April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519). Why lend any credence to a theory that fails such a simple test?

hhEb09'1
2010-Feb-27, 04:14 PM
He just used his old drop cloths.

Disinfo Agent
2010-Feb-27, 04:28 PM
Interesting thought. Still, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Shroud#Analysis_of_the_Shroud):


The 13th and 14th century dating matched the first appearance of the shroud in church history.

hhEb09'1
2010-Feb-27, 04:31 PM
OK, OK, he did the touch-ups

Disinfo Agent
2010-Feb-27, 04:32 PM
That was one heck of a touchup! :D

peledre
2010-Feb-27, 04:53 PM
Leonardo's lifetime fell out of that range (April 15, 1452 – May 2, 1519). Why lend any credence to a theory that fails such a simple test?

Gee, if I was trying to create something that looked really old in the 15th century, I'd probably want to start with the oldest cloth I could find.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-27, 04:56 PM
It honestly just seems like Leonardo Da Vinci was selected purely because he's "smart". The theory seems to lack a good motive for Leonardo, and requires he find a 300 year old cloth to work with...

which, I dunno, sounds somewhat plausible, but this is really stretching it.

peledre
2010-Feb-27, 05:00 PM
Interesting thought. Still, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Shroud#Analysis_of_the_Shroud):

A "shroud" appeared in Lirey France in the 14th century, there happened to be 8 different shrouds throughout the time that relics were a popular business. The shroud that first appeared in France was blasted as an obvious fake and was purchased by the Savoys, only to reappear 50 years later (a convenient amount of time for most people to either die or forget what the old one looked like) in Turin.

Edit: I'm amazed at how many people quote wiki around here, they are such an accurate resource...

Disinfo Agent
2010-Feb-27, 05:03 PM
A "shroud" appeared in Lirey France in the 14th century, there happened to be 8 different shrouds throughout the time that relics were a popular business.Why the scare quotes?

If there were shrouds around prior to the 15th century, how do you know that one of them wasn't the Turin shroud?

peledre
2010-Feb-27, 05:04 PM
It honestly just seems like Leonardo Da Vinci was selected purely because he's "smart". The theory seems to lack a good motive for Leonardo, and requires he find a 300 year old cloth to work with...

which, I dunno, sounds somewhat plausible, but this is really stretching it.
Only about half that time actually, as far as motive goes, despite the Da Vinci Code we do know he kept the Church at arms length throughout his life and the opportunity to create a "relic" that millions would venerate would've been too good to pass up.

Disinfo Agent
2010-Feb-27, 05:07 PM
[...] the opportunity to create a "relic" that millions would venerate would've been too good to pass up.You think so? What could Leonardo possibly have gained from faking a shroud?

peledre
2010-Feb-27, 05:12 PM
Why the scare quotes?

If there were shrouds around prior to the 15th century, how do you know that one of them wasn't the Turin shroud?

It's certainly possible that one of them is, but I always go back to the skills required to produce the image, and really the first person in history who would've had those skills, along with the proximity and motivation to produce it would've been Leonardo.

peledre
2010-Feb-27, 05:13 PM
You think so? What could Leonardo possibly have gained from faking a shroud?

Personal satisfaction.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-27, 05:13 PM
Settle down Alice, he's Leonardo Da Vinci, right or wrong, and whether you like it or not. We tend to anglicize things around here. How do you think Dutch striker Jan Vennegoor of Hesselink feels? ;)
Read again Stan, you're missing the point that it's the missing Leonardo that's wrong rather than starting a sentence with a capital D.

As for Jan all the other lowercase letters in his name are also uppercased so he likely doesn't care.
Had they printed "Jan Vennegoor Of Hesselink" on his shirt there likely would have been words, as there likely would have been if someone consistently referred to him as "of Hesselink" in an article instead of as "Vennegoor of Hesselink".

Daffy
2010-Feb-27, 05:20 PM
I trust that all the pedants here will now refer to Confucius as K'ung fu tze, John Wayne as Marion Robert Morrison, Caligula as Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, and Montezuma as Motecuhzoma Xocoyotzin.

Let's be consistent. ;)

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-27, 05:26 PM
[...] and the opportunity to create a "relic" that millions would venerate would've been too good to pass up.

This sounds too much like the "If I Ran the Zoo" mentality you see amongst conspiracy theorists.

As you are not capable of mind-reading technology, there is no possible way you can be certain that Leonardo would have thought this way.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-27, 05:28 PM
Personal satisfaction.

I get a lot of personal satisfaction from fakery! It's why I like to pretend I can bend spoons with my mind for money.

Wait, no. I don't do that at all.

peledre
2010-Feb-27, 05:29 PM
This sounds too much like the "If I Ran the Zoo" mentality you see amongst conspiracy theorists.

Yeah I don't want to go down that road, but when trying to solve a crime you look for people with the capability and motivation to commit it, and he would be no. 1 on my list.

hhEb09'1
2010-Feb-27, 05:29 PM
Edit: I'm amazed at how many people quote wiki around here, they are such an accurate resource...It's a starting point. :)

As is personal opinion, and private memory, of course, I'll give you that.

peledre
2010-Feb-27, 05:30 PM
I get a lot of personal satisfaction from fakery! It's why I like to pretend I can bend spoons with my mind for money.

Wait, no. I don't do that at all.
The guy was an artist you know.

DonM435
2010-Feb-27, 05:33 PM
I think it was Leonardo di Caprio. The guy obviously didn't make it on acting ability.

ShadowSot
2010-Feb-27, 06:31 PM
A question to add to the scenario...
Supposedly, Leonardo acquired a aged cloth to fake the shroud...
Now, there's historical records of various shrouds predating Leonardo, whic to me puts it in doubt.
but, why would he get a cloth so old?
Today we have carbon dating, among other things to detect the age, but at that point, the dating would have been less precise.
He could of, if we want to hypothsize, just as easily made the material look old.

Swift
2010-Feb-27, 06:40 PM
Settle down Alice, he's Leonardo Da Vinci, right or wrong, and whether you like it or not.
OK, everyone lighten up.

We've had several Reported Posts, plus the in-thread discussion about changing the thread title. Multiple moderators have discussed this and no one sees any need. It doesn't seem as if a single person is confused as to who the discussion is about and it has nothing to do with the OP.

This discussion is also getting a little snarky at times. Everyone just chill. This is BABBling, not ATM or CT.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-27, 07:44 PM
... We tend to anglicize things around here. ...
Here? Where is "here"? things aren't anglicized where I live.


... Getting back to the question at hand, who could've forged it? ...
Probably lots of people. I think you're terribly underestimating humanity, especially the people who lived in the 15th century.


... If you start with the assumption that it's the first Renaissance photograph ...
Apart from the fact that it would be the only Renaissance photograph and not just the first, the photograph theory is just one theory among many.


... there are a really limited number of people with the skills, motivation, and proximity to be able to produce it. ...
Sure. The same restriction applies today. But how many were there. How can we know?

Leonardo didn't live in a bubble.


... The knowledge of anatomy demonstrated in the Shroud is extremely advanced for the 15th century. ...
Hmmm, the shroud doesn't really show much. Two arms, two legs and a head. Leonardo wasn't the only artist who put the nails through the wrist.


... We know that Leonardo was one of the first Europeans to dissect bodies to try and understand the function and form of the underlying structures. ...
We know this?


... There isn't any one piece of evidence that points directly to Leonardo, but there wouldn't have been many people capable of doing it. ...
How can we know that? Just because Leonardo is famous?


... despite the Da Vinci Code we do know ...
Despite the Da Vinci Code?

How can a purely fictional story be used as a reference?

The Early Renaissance was a vivid era. Things were changing rapidly. Reducing that era more or less down to a solo by Leonardo is false.

Gillianren
2010-Feb-27, 08:20 PM
It's certainly possible that one of them is, but I always go back to the skills required to produce the image, and really the first person in history who would've had those skills, along with the proximity and motivation to produce it would've been Leonardo.

Leaving aside the fact that the cloth is almost certainly older than he would have been able to find--how many 300-year-old pieces of cloth do you have lying around?--you don't know that. You know he's the earliest one you've heard of, but so what? There's no certainty that it's a "photograph," so you have to show that it is before you can show that only he could have created a photograph--and that isn't where I'd start my search for evidence anyway, because you can never prove that.


I think it was Leonardo di Caprio. The guy obviously didn't make it on acting ability.

This is the wrong thread, but allow me to stand up for him briefly. He can act; I've seen it happen. He just doesn't. However, if he went back in time to forge the Shroud, that's acting!

hhEb09'1
2010-Feb-27, 08:44 PM
However, if he went back in time to forge the Shroud, that's acting!I'm sure he'd go at it hammer and tongs :)

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-27, 08:57 PM
The guy was an artist you know.

He didn't fake the Mona Lisa, he painted it.

Ara Pacis
2010-Feb-27, 10:43 PM
Possible motives:
Someone wanted to make money on it.
Someone wanted to show up the so-called artists who produced the fakes, thinking "if you're giong to fake it, do it right"
Someone who owed money to someone.
Someone who disapproved of the Relics Trade.
Someone who disliked the Church.
Someone who liked the Church, or one in particular enough to give them a more realistic fake than its competitors.

IIRC, it's considered a fake for many reasons, one if which is that it depicts a european rather than a middle-eastern morphology.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-27, 10:48 PM
If we're talking "someone in general"'s motivations, that's one thing. If we're talking Leonardo's motivations for creating the thing, you have to get more specific.

Ara Pacis
2010-Feb-27, 11:14 PM
If we're talking "someone in general"'s motivations, that's one thing. If we're talking Leonardo's motivations for creating the thing, you have to get more specific.I'm not claiming anything, but feel free to pick one and run with it.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-27, 11:17 PM
I'm not claiming anything, but feel free to pick one and run with it.

Someone who disliked the church -- the claim was that Leonardo did it because he liked the Church.

Someone who wanted to make money on it -- did Leonardo receive a dime on the shroud? Is there any record of a transaction?

Someone who owed money to someone -- ditto.

Someone who disapproved of the relics trade -- why create a relic if you disapprove of the trade? This isn't even logical.

Someone who liked the Church -- again, this is the claim of Leonardo, except that there's no real evidence that Leonardo liked the Church enough to create fakes to support it.

Again, this is about Leonardo Da Vinci, as per the OP, title of the thread, and the claims of the person who created this thread. Throwing out shotgun explanations doesn't work, because you're talking about a very specific person here.

Ara Pacis
2010-Feb-28, 12:01 AM
Someone who disapproved of the relics trade -- why create a relic if you disapprove of the trade? This isn't even logical.Perhaps to later out them.


Again, this is about Leonardo Da Vinci, as per the OP, title of the thread, and the claims of the person who created this thread. Throwing out shotgun explanations doesn't work, because you're talking about a very specific person here.
Unless it was the motivation of someone other than LdV who created it.

peledre
2010-Feb-28, 12:03 AM
Probably lots of people. I think you're terribly underestimating humanity, especially the people who lived in the 15th century.

Yes, I'm sure there are thousands of 15th century Italians with a thorough depth of knowledge in art, optics, anatomy, chemistry required to forge the shroud in the way it was.



Apart from the fact that it would be the only Renaissance photograph and not just the first, the photograph theory is just one theory among many.

Certainly, for me as a photographer the most glaring evidence of the photograph theory is when viewing the image in negative. The shroud is actually a large, negative image, so when viewed in the photographic negative you're actually looking at the positive image, which jumps right out at you.



Sure. The same restriction applies today. But how many were there. How can we know?

I certainly think we could come up with a reasonable estimate, the type of person that has the skills required to do this isn't going to be somebody tending hogs in the countryside or working on a boat. It would require quite an exceptional person with some rather unique knowledge.



Hmmm, the shroud doesn't really show much. Two arms, two legs and a head. Leonardo wasn't the only artist who put the nails through the wrist.

I'm not aware of any contemporary depictions of the holy wounds being on the wrist rather than the palm.



We know this?

Yes, as I said he was one of the first to do dissections (most likely not the first but certainly in that group), pre-14th century it wasn't really done at all and he obviously recorded most of his work in beautiful detail
http://www.leonardo-da-vinci-biography.com/images/leonardo-da-vinci-anatomy.4.jpg



How can we know that? Just because Leonardo is famous?

You can never be certain, but someone with these types of abilities isn't going to be joe blow your average farmer, it requires an exceptional person. Certainly Leonardo had many contemporaries but to me he appears the most likely candidate.



Despite the Da Vinci Code?

How can a purely fictional story be used as a reference?

I don't think you understood what I meant.

The book pegged him as one of the past heads of a mystery cult called that worshipped the pagan sacred feminine and had the long term goal to undermine the Church. Despite what that book says about him it is made clear in the multiple biographies I've read of him that he didn't think too highly of the church, was in fact a vegetarian, and often worked on holy days. His religious views and ideas were quite advanced for the time and on par with someone like Thomas Jefferson.



The Early Renaissance was a vivid era. Things were changing rapidly. Reducing that era more or less down to a solo by Leonardo is false.
I don't think I've done that.

peledre
2010-Feb-28, 12:08 AM
He didn't fake the Mona Lisa, he painted it.

Your point?

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-28, 12:14 AM
Perhaps to later out them.
And when did he out them?

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-28, 12:14 AM
Your point?

Your saying, "He's an artist, therefore he would have been just fine forging a relic!" is nonsense, and I would have to say an insult to artists.

I'm a writer. Does this mean that I want to forge a manuscript under someone else's name? No. Nonsense.

Ara Pacis
2010-Feb-28, 12:25 AM
And when did he out them?

Who?

I don't have a dog in this fight. I posted some possible motives, some of them contradictory since we can't read someone's mind. Use it or not, I don't care.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-28, 12:32 AM
Who?

Leonardo? As per the OP, like I've said 3 times now?

peledre
2010-Feb-28, 12:34 AM
Your saying, "He's an artist, therefore he would have been just fine forging a relic!" is nonsense, and I would have to say an insult to artists.

I'm a writer. Does this mean that I want to forge a manuscript under someone else's name? No. Nonsense.

I'm saying he's an artist he would do something to create beauty, and if he is the only one in on the joke, all the better.

peledre
2010-Feb-28, 12:36 AM
Your saying, "He's an artist, therefore he would have been just fine forging a relic!" is nonsense, and I would have to say an insult to artists.

I'm a writer. Does this mean that I want to forge a manuscript under someone else's name? No. Nonsense.
As he was an artist and considering the views of the church that he held, I would think forging a relic and forging someone else's painting would be two entirely different situations.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-28, 12:36 AM
I'm saying he's an artist he would do something to create beauty, and if he is the only one in on the joke, all the better.

Yet another "If I ran the Zoo" fallacy?

I can speculate on people's professions based purely on assumption too!

Ara Pacis
2010-Feb-28, 12:44 AM
Leonardo? As per the OP, like I've said 3 times now?

Or someone else, as an alternate hypothesis per responses to the OP.

kleindoofy
2010-Feb-28, 01:00 AM
... The shroud is actually a large, negative image, ...
No, it's something we today can perceive as a negative, because we know what photographic negatives are. That doesn't make it a negative. There are other possible explanations. For instance, if somebody used to coloring cloth with patterns used a positive instead of a reverse sieve, you would get what we today call a negative.


... I don't think you understood what I meant.

The book pegged him as one of the past heads of a mystery cult ...
So what?

When speaking of history, who would ever dream of having their picture of historic personages influenced by a fictional book?

The Renaissance world was full of people who wanted to make a quick buck. Alchemists, fraudsters, traveling "doctors," etc. The ingenuity of these people and the energy they invested into fooling people for profit shouldn't be underestimated.

Often enough it can be simple for one person to do something, but very difficult for other people to find how how it was done. Maybe the answer will be found, without mystery.

You know, I saw a documentary about the shroud on TV a few years ago. The theories you've been presenting are exactly the same as the ones in the TV show.

That must be a coincidence.

peledre
2010-Feb-28, 01:08 AM
You know, I saw a documentary about the shroud on TV a few years ago. The theories you've been presenting are exactly the same as the ones in the TV show.

That must be a coincidence.

I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where I claimed responsibility for the theory.

peledre
2010-Feb-28, 01:10 AM
So what?

When speaking of history, who would ever dream of having their picture of historic personages influenced by a fictional book?

Do you understand what "despite" means in this context?

Gillianren
2010-Feb-28, 05:39 AM
I'm saying he's an artist he would do something to create beauty, and if he is the only one in on the joke, all the better.

If he's of that sort of personality. If he respects the Church, it would be immoral to fool them. If he doesn't respect the Church, it would be immoral not to point out that he had. See also Mark Hofmann, who may not have revealed his hoaxes until much later, but couldn't resist making sure everyone knew how clever he was one way or another.

Of course, if he's just in it for money, he's not the Leonardo history represents.

SolusLupus
2010-Feb-28, 05:44 AM
Thank you, Gillian. That's essentially what I've been saying (or trying to).

HenrikOlsen
2010-Feb-28, 08:52 AM
Yes, I'm sure there are thousands of 15th century Italians with a thorough depth of knowledge in art, optics, anatomy, chemistry required to forge the shroud in the way it was.
You have yet to substantiate that it was forged the way you're claiming.

Do that first, then argue who could have done it.

Physical evidence should be the start of the investigation, not the end.

Daffy
2010-Feb-28, 01:59 PM
I'm saying he's an artist he would do something to create beauty, and if he is the only one in on the joke, all the better.

Not necessarily. As Frank Zappa once said, if you can't find a chord ugly enough to say what you want, that's when you bring out the giraffe and the whipped cream. Artists don't only create beauty.

hhEb09'1
2010-Feb-28, 02:49 PM
So what?

When speaking of history, who would ever dream of having their picture of historic personages influenced by a fictional book?I don't know about dream, but there are examples of authors who write extensively researched historical fiction, like James Michener for an instance. In some works, historical characters not central to the plot are portrayed accurately, sometimes not.

peledre
2010-Feb-28, 04:21 PM
You have yet to substantiate that it was forged the way you're claiming.

Do that first, then argue who could have done it.

Physical evidence should be the start of the investigation, not the end.

Yes I think the first step would be some additional tests of the shroud itself, but I doubt the Church would allow anymore testing especially with the German they have as #1 Priest right now.