posted
So the National Geographic channel was running some interesting specials last night. They had their version of "Debunking the Da Vinci Code" on. The History Channel had one on recently too, and it was interesting the different ways the two shows approached it. National Geo. actually had Dan Brown, and he admitted where he was stretching a couple of times, and they did some debunking research too. I was folding wash and it kept me mostly interested.
But, after that they had a much more (to me) interesting show on the Shroud of Turin, disscussing the carbon dating etc. But also doing computer analysis, showing that the man's face on the shroud is extremely similar to Leonardo Da Vincis self-portrait. This historian in South Africa has also found a way to create near identical images using a camera obscura and light sensitive chemicals (Silver Nitrate) that were known at the time of Da Vinci.
While still in the "conspiracy theory" realm, the links they had between the Shroud of Turin and DaVinci were far more convincing than the Da Vinci Code stuff. The cloth of the Shroud does carbon date to a couple of centuries before Da Vinci. However there was quite a bit of old cloth from Israel floating around Europe at the time, due to the Crusades. And if Da Vinci was going to do a forgery like this, a genius like he was, wouldn't have used a brand new cloth anyway.
There are also lots of close ties between the Turin noble family, and DaVinci as well as the Pope at the time who was a cousin of theirs. And there were lots of shrouds floating around at the time all claiming to be authentic. The first verifiable time that this shroud came on the scene definitively was right around DaVinci's time too. Plus he was basically a heretic anyway and wouldn't have had the fear of damnation scruples that many others would have to try something like this. Particularly if he had some powerful backers in the Church who stood to gain from a truly authentic-looking forgery.
Considering that he conceptualized helicopters, figuring out something like this, especially since all the pieces were avaiable at the time, probably isn't a stretch for DaVinci either.
One of the interesting things that they discussed was the fact that the back image is actually a quarter or so inch taller than the front image. And the head doesn't quite sit on the neck correctly anatomically either. They believe this is because, it was done in 3 parts (whoever did it). First the back, then the front, but that they did the face separately to give it more detail and didn't get everything quite alligned correctly.
Anyway it was a fascinating theory and one which makes a lot more sense then the rest of the DaVinci Code nonsense.
posted
I know next to nothing about the shroud of Turin. But, IIRC, one of the odd facts about it is that it is basically a negative image, produced centuries (at least) before such a thing had been conceived.
posted
Incidentally, I've been to the chapel in Torino where the shroud is kept. It's a very interesting part of town. They hold an open market nearby quite often, and there's an old Roman fort across the street. The Palazzo Reale is also nearby.
posted
One other point they made: This shroud is the only known one that actually puts the nail marks in the wrist. This is apparently the anatomically best way to do it, and it is believed that the Romans may actually have done it that way. But, no artist at the time or in centuries previous had ever done it that way. They'd always gone with nail prints through the palms of his hands. But DaVinci, one of the only people of the era that had done extensive anatomical studies on humans (also technically forbidden by the Church at the time, but he got away with it, and we still have many of his extensive anatomical sketches today). He's probably also one of the only people of the time period who would have bothered or even had the knowledge to do something that made structural and anatomical sense, and flaunt tradition.
posted
And yes, it is basically a photographic negative. One of their points was that all of the ingredients for creating a photographic negative were actually avaliable in DaVinci's time. However whoever it was that did the forgery wasn't going to divulge their secret either.
The carbon dating makes it pretty clear it is a forgery cause it just isn't old enough, though people can argue a bit about that due to more current dating methods available than when the shroud was examined back in the early 80s.
Apparently several of DaVincis known painting techniques still haven't been figured out, and with something like this, he wouldn't be fool enough to leave writing around documenting it either.
quote:As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud. Pyrolysis-mass spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the Shroud.
posted
Yes I know that see above. And as I said before there isn't necessarily a 100% correlation between the age of the cloth and the date of the image either. Because any forger not just Da Vinci would have attempted to get the most appropriate old cloth to do the job.
And there is the whole thing about how if the cloth was actually resting on a body you would have gotten distortion as it fell over the body in 3-D. The only ways you won't is if you use a bas-relief type model to work from, or, they are speculating, a early camera-type technique.
posted
Note, I should make it clear, I actually think it would be Really Neat, if the shroud was the real thing, but the skeptic in me says it isn't. The story emphasied throughout that they weren't disrespecting the faithful. They pointed out that while possibly not in the "strict" sense of things, the Catholic Church has always used visual objects in their worship, and that even if this was a "work of art" in some ways it would be similar to a crucifix. They aren't truly venerating the shroud for its sake alone but Jesus of Nazareth.
I have no opinion on the Shroud of Turin, and know little about it. If it is the real thing, that would indeed be "neat", as you say. If it isn't, it's still an impressive work of art (to say the least.) It's a curious artifact, but my faith is in no way based or dependent upon the Shroud. It is a peculiar artifact, though, and I confess to being mildly curious about it.
EDIT to avoid using the same word twice in one sentence.
quote: The carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin is famous because it spawned so many conspiracy theories posing as history. John Dominic Crossan, the famed Jesus Seminar scholar, proposed that someone in medieval times was crucified by a crafter of fake relics in order to produce the Shroud. Others proposed that Leonardo da Vinci created it -- anew, it turns out, since the Shroud was well known in Europe a century before Leonardo was born. Walter McCrone, a renowned microscopist, who examined some borrowed fibers from the Shroud, claimed that the images were painted -- just as a medieval bishop, Pierre d’Arcis, had claimed in 1389. The painting claims are preposterous because other unimpeachable chemical studies prove that the images were not painted.
Interestinger and interestinger...
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The camera obscura/silver nitrate techniques that they were speculating on in this article were *not* painting. They are basically chemical ways of producing burns on the cloth. Using a heated bas-relief life size model would also produce similar burns.
(Please note, I am not trying to argue for or against the Shroud's authenticity. I'm merely reading about a subject I know little about... )
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh ok, I've actually read quite a bit about it before. I haven't found on your site yet the discussion of the middle easter plant spores I believe they found as well.
These conspiracy theorists say the image (DaVinci or not) was done on an old cloth, from the middle east.
I don't see them discussing the height differential between the front and back images on this site either.
posted
I saw a history channel thing on the Shroud of Turin a few years ago and I thought they said that the keepers of the Shroud wouldn't let anyone actually date it because that would involve buring a small piece of it.
posted
If I remember correctly, the literature at the chapel stops short of claiming that the shroud is authentic. . .
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah another bit of speculation is that they got Da Vinci to make it "more" authentic looking than it was before, or to supercede another existing shroud.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
see above. And as I said before there isn't necessarily a 100% correlation between the age of the cloth and the date of the image either. Because any forger not just Da Vinci would have attempted to get the most appropriate old cloth to do the job.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
