Mona Lisa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the painting. For other uses, see Mona Lisa (disambiguation).

Mona Lisa
Italian: La Gioconda, French: La Joconde

Artist Year Type Dimensions Location

Leonardo da Vinci c. 15031519 Oil on poplar 77 cm 53 cm (30 in 21 in) Muse du Louvre, Paris

Mona Lisa (also known as La Gioconda or La Joconde, or Portrait of Lisa Gherardini, wife of Francesco del Giocondo[1]) is a portrait by the Florentine artist Leonardo da Vinci. It is a painting in oil on a poplar panel, completed circa 1503-1519. It is on permanent display at the Muse du Louvre in Paris. The painting is a half-length portrait and depicts a seated woman (probably Lisa del Giocondo) whose facial expression is frequently described as enigmatic.[2] The ambiguity of the subject's expression, the monumentality of the composition, and the subtle modeling of forms and atmospheric illusionism were novel qualities that have contributed to the continuing fascination

and study of the work.[1] The image is so widely recognised, caricatured, and sought out by visitors to the Louvre that it is considered the most famous painting in the world.[3][4]

Contents
[hide]

1 Background 2 Subject and title 3 Aesthetics 4 Theft and vandalism 5 Conservation

5.1 Poplar panel 5.2 Frame 5.3 Cleaning and touch-up 5.4 Display

6 Fame 7 Speculation about the painting 8 Legacy 9 Notes 10 References 11 External links

Background
Main article: Leonardo da Vinci

Self-portrait by Leonardo da Vinci, executed in red chalk sometime between 1512 and 1515

Leonardo Da Vinci began painting the Mona Lisa in 1503 or 1504 in Florence, Italy.[5] According to Da Vinci's contemporary, Giorgio Vasari, "...after he had lingered over it four years, left it unfinished...."[6] It is known that such behavior is common in most paintings of Leonardo who, later in his life, regretted "never having completed a single work".[7] He is thought to have continued to work on Mona Lisa for three years after he moved to France and to have finished it shortly before he died in 1519.[8] Leonardo took the painting from Italy to France in 1516 when King Franois I invited the painter to work at the Clos Luc near the king's castle in Amboise. Most likely through the heirs of Leonardo's assistant Salai,[9] the king bought the painting for 4,000 cus and kept it at Chteau Fontainebleau, where it remained until given to Louis XIV. Louis XIV moved the painting to the Palace of Versailles. After the French Revolution, it was moved to the Louvre. Napoleon I had it moved to his bedroom in the Tuileries Palace; later it was returned to the Louvre. During the Franco-Prussian War (18701871) it was moved from the Louvre to the Brest Arsenal.[10] There has been much speculation regarding the painting's model and landscape. For example, that Leonardo probably painted his model faithfully since her beauty is not seen as being among the best, "even when measured by late quattrocento (15th century) or even twenty-first century standards."[11] Some art historians in Eastern art, such as Yukio Yashiro, also argue that the landscape in the background of the picture was influenced by Chinese paintings, however this thesis has been contested for lack of clear evidence.[12] Mona Lisa was not well known until the mid-19th century when artists of the emerging Symbolist movement began to appreciate it, and associated it with their ideas about feminine mystique. Critic Walter Pater, in his 1867 essay on Leonardo, expressed this view by describing the figure in the painting as a kind of mythic embodiment of eternal femininity, who is "older than the rocks among which she sits" and who "has been dead many times and learned the secrets of the grave."[13]

Subject and title

Main article: Lisa del Giocondo Mona Lisa is named for Lisa del Giocondo,[14][15] a member of the Gherardini family of Florence and Tuscany and the wife of wealthy Florentine silk merchant Francesco del Giocondo.[9] The painting was commissioned for their new home and to celebrate the birth of their second son, Andrea.[16] The sitter's identity was ascertained at the University of Heidelberg in 2005 by a library expert who discovered a 1503 margin note written by Agostino Vespucci.[17] Scholars have been of many minds, identifying at least four different paintings as the Mona Lisa[18][19][20] and several people as its subject. Leonardo's mother Caterina Buti del Vacca in a distant memory,[21] Isabella of Naples or Aragon,[22] Cecilia Gallerani,[23] Costanza d'Avalos, Duchess of Francavilla who was also called the "merry one" or La Gioconda,[20] Isabella d'Este, Pacifica Brandano or Brandino, Isabela Gualanda, Caterina Sforza, and Leonardo himself have all been named the sitter.[8][24] Today the subject's identity is held to be Lisa, which has always been the traditional view.[17]

A margin note by Agostino Vespucci from October 1503 in a book in the library of the University of Heidelberg identifies Lisa del Giocondo as the model of Mona Lisa. The painting's title stems from a description by Giorgio Vasari in his biography of Leonardo published in 1550, 31 years after the artist's death. "Leonardo undertook to paint, for Francesco del Giocondo, the portrait of Mona Lisa, his wife...."[6] (one version in Italian: Prese Lionardo a fare per Francesco del Giocondo il ritratto di mona Lisa sua moglie).[25] In Italian, ma donna means my lady. This became madonna, and its contraction mona. Mona is thus a polite form of address, similar to Maam, Madam, or my lady in English. In modern Italian, the short form of madonna is usually spelled Monna, so the title is sometimes Monna Lisa, rarely in English and more commonly in Romance languages such as French and Italian. At his death in 1525, Leonardo's assistant Salai owned the portrait named in his personal papers la Gioconda which had been bequeathed to him by the artist. Italian for jocund, happy or jovial, Gioconda was a nickname for the sitter, a pun on the feminine form of her married name Giocondo and her disposition.[9][26] In French, the title La Joconde has the same double meaning.

Aesthetics

Detail of the background (right side) Leonardo used a pyramid design to place the woman simply and calmly in the space of the painting. Her folded hands form the front corner of the pyramid. Her breast, neck and face glow in the same light that models her hands. The light gives the variety of living surfaces an underlying geometry of spheres and circles. Leonardo referred to a seemingly simple formula for seated female figure: the images of seated Madonna, which were widespread at the time. He effectively modified this formula in order to create the visual impression of distance between the sitter and the observer. The armrest of the chair functions as a dividing element between Mona Lisa and the viewer. The woman sits markedly upright with her arms folded, which is also a sign of her reserved posture. Only her gaze is fixed on the observer and seems to welcome him to this silent communication. Since the brightly lit face is practically framed with various much darker elements (hair, veil, shadows), the observer's attraction to it is brought to even greater extent. The woman appears alive to an unusual measure, which Leonardo achieved by his new method

not to draw the outlines, "mainly in two features: the corners of the mouth, and the corners of the eyes" (Gombrich), as firmly as that had been the use, before (sfumato).[27] There is no indication of an intimate dialogue between the woman and the observer as is the case in the Portrait of Baldassare Castiglione (Louvre) painted by Raphael about ten years later, and undoubtedly influenced by the work.

Detail of Lisa's hands, her right hand resting on her left. Leonardo chose this gesture rather than a wedding ring to depict Lisa as a virtuous woman and faithful wife.[28] The painting was among the first portraits to depict the sitter before an imaginary landscape and Leonardo was one of the first painters to use aerial perspective.[29] The enigmatic woman is portrayed seated in what appears to be an open loggia with dark pillar bases on either side. Behind her a vast landscape recedes to icy mountains. Winding paths and a distant bridge give only the slightest indications of human presence. The sensuous curves of the woman's hair and clothing are echoed in the undulating imaginary valleys and rivers behind her. The blurred outlines, graceful figure, dramatic contrasts of light and dark, and overall feeling of calm are characteristic of Leonardo's style. Owing to the expressive synthesis that Leonardo achieved between sitter and landscape it is arguable whether Mona Lisa should be considered as a traditional portrait, for it represents an ideal rather than a real woman. The sense of overall harmony achieved in the paintingespecially apparent in the sitter's faint smilereflects the idea of a link connecting humanity and nature. Mona Lisa has no clearly visible eyebrows or eyelashes. Some researchers claim that it was common at this time for genteel women to pluck these hairs, as they were considered unsightly. [30][31] In 2007, French engineer Pascal Cotte announced that his ultra high resolution scans of the painting provide evidence that Mona Lisa was originally painted with eyelashes and with better visible eyebrows, but that these had gradually disappeared over time, perhaps as a result of overcleaning.[32] For modern viewers the nearly-missing eyebrows add to the slightly semiabstract quality of the face.

Theft and vandalism

Vacant wall in the Salon Carr, Louvre The Mona Lisa painting now hangs in the Muse du Louvre in Paris. The painting's increasing fame was further emphasized when it was stolen on 21 August 1911.[33] The next day, Louis Broud, a painter, walked into the Louvre and went to the Salon Carr where the Mona Lisa had been on display for five years. However, where the Mona Lisa should have stood, he found four iron pegs. Broud contacted the section head of the guards, who thought the painting was being photographed for marketing purposes. A few hours later, Broud checked back with the section head of the museum, and it was confirmed that the Mona Lisa was not with the photographers. The Louvre was closed for an entire week to aid in investigation of the theft. French poet Guillaume Apollinaire, who had once called for the Louvre to be "burnt down," came under suspicion; he was arrested and put in jail. Apollinaire tried to implicate his friend Pablo Picasso, who was also brought in for questioning, but both were later exonerated.[34] At the time, the painting was believed to be lost forever, and it was two years before the real thief was discovered. Louvre employee Vincenzo Peruggia had stolen it by entering the building during regular hours, hiding in a broom closet and walking out with it hidden under his coat after the museum had closed.[26] Peruggia was an Italian patriot who believed Leonardo's painting should be returned to Italy for display in an Italian museum. Peruggia may have also been motivated by a friend who sold copies of the painting, which would skyrocket in value after the theft of the original. After having kept the painting in his apartment for two years, Peruggia grew impatient and was finally caught when he attempted to sell it to the directors of the Uffizi Gallery in Florence; it was exhibited all over Italy and returned to the Louvre in 1913. Peruggia was hailed for his patriotism in Italy and only served six months in jail for the crime.[34] During World War II, the painting was again removed from the Louvre and taken safely, first to Chteau d'Amboise, then to the Loc-Dieu Abbey and Chteau de Chambord, then finally to the Ingres Museum in Montauban. In 1956, the lower part of the painting was severely damaged when a vandal doused the painting with acid.[35] On 30 December of that same year, a young Bolivian named Ugo Ungaza Villegas damaged the painting by throwing a rock at it. This resulted in the loss of a speck of pigment near the left elbow, which was later painted over.[36] The use of bulletproof glass has shielded the Mona Lisa from more recent attacks. In April 1974, a handicapped woman, upset by the museum's policy for the disabled, sprayed red paint at the painting while it was on display at the Tokyo National Museum.[37] On 2 August 2009, a Russian woman, distraught over being denied French citizenship, threw a terra cotta mug or teacup,

purchased at the museum, at the painting in the Louvre; the vessel shattered against the glass enclosure.[38][39] In both cases, the painting was undamaged.

Conservation
The Mona Lisa has survived for more than 500 years, and an international commission convened in 1952 noted that "the picture is in a remarkable state of preservation."[40] This is partly due to the result of a variety of conservation treatments the painting has undergone. A detailed analysis in 1933 by Madame de Gironde revealed that earlier restorers had "acted with a great deal of restraint."[40] Nevertheless, applications of varnish made to the painting had darkened even by the end of the 16th century, and an aggressive 1809 cleaning and revarnishing removed some of the uppermost portion of the paint layer, resulting in a washed-out appearance to the face of the figure. Despite the treatments, the Mona Lisa has been well cared for throughout its history, and although the panel's warping caused the curators "some worry",[41] the 200405 conservation team was optimistic about the future of the work.[40]

Poplar panel
At some point in its history, the Mona Lisa was removed from its original frame. The unconstrained poplar panel was allowed to warp freely with changes in humidity, and as a result, a crack began to develop near the top of the panel. The crack extends down to the hairline of the figure. In the mid-18th century to early 19th century, someone attempted to stabilize the crack by inlaying two butterfly-shaped walnut braces into the back of the panel to a depth of about 1/3 the thickness of the panel. This work was skillfully executed, and has successfully stabilized the crack. Sometime between 1888 and 1905, or perhaps at some point during the picture's theft, the upper brace fell out. A later restorer glued and lined the resulting socket and crack with cloth. The flexible oak frame (added 1951) and cross braces (1970) help to keep the panel from warping further. A butterfly brace prevents the panel from further cracking. The picture is currently kept under strict, climate-controlled conditions in its bulletproof glass case. The humidity is maintained at 50% 10%, and the temperature is maintained between 18 and 21 C. To compensate for fluctuations in relative humidity, the case is supplemented with a bed of silica gel treated to provide 55% relative humidity.[40]

Frame
Because the Mona Lisa's poplar support expands and contracts with changes in humidity, the picture has experienced some warping. In response to warping and swelling experienced during its storage during World War II, and to prepare the picture for an exhibit to honor the anniversary of Leonardo's 500th birthday, the Mona Lisa was fitted in 1951 with a flexible oak frame with beech crosspieces. This flexible frame, which is used in addition to the decorative frame described below, exerts pressure on the panel to keep it from warping further. In 1970, the beech crosspieces were switched to maple after it was found that the beechwood had been infested with insects. In 20042005, a conservation and study team replaced the maple crosspieces with sycamore ones, and an additional metal crosspiece was added for scientific measurement of the panel's warp. The Mona Lisa has had many different decorative frames in its history, owing to changes in taste over the centuries. In 1906, the Countess of Barn gave the portrait its current frame, a Renaissance-era work consistent with the historical period of the Mona Lisa. The edges of the painting have been trimmed at least once in its history to fit the picture into various frames, but no part of the original paint layer has been trimmed.[40]

Cleaning and touch-up

The first and most extensive recorded cleaning, revarnishing, and touch-up of the Mona Lisa was an 1809 wash and revarnishing undertaken by Jean-Marie Hooghstoel, who was responsible for restoration of paintings for the galleries of the Muse Napolon. The work involved cleaning with spirits, touch-up of colour, and revarnishing the painting. In 1906, Louvre restorer Eugne Denizard performed watercolour retouches on areas of the paint layer disturbed by the crack in the panel. Denizard also retouched the edges of the picture with varnish, to mask areas that had been covered initially by an older frame. In 1913, when the painting was recovered after its theft, Denizard was again called upon to work on the Mona Lisa. Denizard was directed to clean the picture without solvent, and to lightly touch up several scratches to the painting with watercolour. In 1952, the varnish layer over the background in the painting was evened out. After the second 1956 attack, restorer Jean-Gabriel Goulinat was directed to touch up the damage to Mona Lisa's left elbow with watercolour.[40] In 1977, a new insect infestation was discovered in the back of the panel as a result of crosspieces installed to keep the painting from warping. This was treated on the spot with carbon tetrachloride, and later with an ethylene oxide treatment. In 1985, the spot was again treated with carbon tetrachloride as a preventive measure.[40]

Display
On 6 April 2005following a period of curatorial maintenance, recording, and analysisthe painting was moved to a new location within the museum's Salle des tats. It is displayed in a purpose-built, climate-controlled enclosure behind bulletproof glass.[42] The renovation of the gallery where the painting now resides was financed by the Japanese broadcaster Nippon Television.[43] About 6 million people view the painting at the Louvre each year.[8] A charcoal and graphite study of the Mona Lisa attributed to Leonardo is in The Hyde Collection, in Glens Falls, New York.[44]

Fame

Mona Lisa is among the greatest attractions in the Louvre Historian Donald Sassoon catalogued the growth of the painting's fame. During the mid-19th century, Thophile Gautier and the Romantic poets were able to write about Mona Lisa as a femme fatale because Lisa was an ordinary person. Mona Lisa "...was an open text into which one could read what one wanted; probably because she was not a religious image; and, probably, because the literary gazers were mainly men who subjected her to an endless stream of male fantasies." During the 20th century, the painting was stolen, an object for mass reproduction,

merchandising, lampooning and speculation, and was reproduced in "300 paintings and 2,000 advertisements".[45] The subject was described as deaf, in mourning,[46] toothless, a "highly-paid tart", various people's lover, a reflection of the artist's neuroses, and a victim of syphilis, infection, paralysis, palsy, cholesterol or a toothache.[45] Scholarly as well as amateur speculation assigned Lisa's name to at least four different paintings[18][20][46] and the sitter's identity to at least ten different people.[22][23][24][47] Visitors generally spend about 15 seconds viewing the Mona Lisa.[48] Until the 20th century, Mona Lisa was one among many and certainly not the "most famous painting"[4] in the world as it is termed today. Among works in the Louvre, in 1852 its market value was 90,000 francs compared to works by Raphael valued at up to 600,000 francs. In 1878, the Baedeker guide called it "the most celebrated work of Leonardo in the Louvre". Between 1851 and 1880, artists who visited the Louvre copied Mona Lisa roughly half as many times as certain works by Bartolom Esteban Murillo, Antonio da Correggio, Paolo Veronese, Titian, Jean-Baptiste Greuze and Pierre-Paul Prud'hon.[45]

Crowd stand before the Mona Lisa at the Louvre From December 1962 to March 1963, the French government lent it to the United States to be displayed in New York City and Washington, D.C.[49] In 1974, the painting was exhibited in Tokyo and Moscow.[50] Before the 19621963 tour, the painting was assessed, for insurance purposes, as valued at $100 million; the insurance was not bought. Instead more money was spent on security.[51] As an expensive painting, it has only recently been surpassed, in terms of actual price, by three other paintings: the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I by Gustav Klimt, which was sold for $135 million, the Woman III by Willem de Kooning sold for $138 million in November 2006, and No. 5, 1948 by Jackson Pollock sold for a record $140 million in November 2006. Although these figures are greater than the 1962 figure at which the Mona Lisa was valued, the comparison does not account for the change in prices due to inflation $100 million in 1962 is approximately $720 million in 2010 when adjusted for inflation using the US Consumer Price Index.[52]

Speculation about the painting

Main article: Speculation about Mona Lisa Although the sitter has traditionally been identified as Lisa del Giocondo, a lack of definitive evidence has long fueled alternative theories, including Leonardo's mother Caterina in a distant memory and the possibility that Leonardo used his own likeness. Other aspects of the painting that have been subject to speculation are the original size of the painting, whether it is the original, why it was painted, and various explanations for how the effect of an enigmatic smile was achieved.

In December 2010 it was claimed that the Mona Lisa appears to have tiny letters and numbers in her eyes which are only apparent when viewed with a magnifying glass, however the accuracy of this claim is disputed.[53][54] Two months later, the same historian, Silvano Vinceti, claimed da Vinci's male apprentice (and possible lover) Gian Giacomo Caprotti was the inspiration and model for the painting.[55]

Legacy

Le rire (The laugh) by L.H.O.O.Q. by Marcel Eugne Bataille, or Duchamp (1919) Sapeck (1883) The avant-garde art world has made note of the undeniable fact of the Mona Lisa's popularity. Because of the painting's overwhelming stature, Dadaists and Surrealists often produce modifications and caricatures. Already in 1883, Le rire, an image of a Mona Lisa smoking a pipe, by Sapeck (Eugne Bataille), was shown at the "Incoherents" show in Paris. In 1919, Marcel Duchamp, one of the most influential modern artists, created L.H.O.O.Q., a Mona Lisa parody made by adorning a cheap reproduction with a moustache and a goatee, as well as adding the rude inscription, when read out loud in French sounds like "Elle a chaud au cul" (literally translated: "she has a hot ass". This is a manner of implying the woman in the painting is in a state of sexual excitement and availability). This was intended as a Freudian joke,[56] referring to Leonardo's alleged homosexuality. According to Rhonda R. Shearer, the apparent reproduction is in fact a copy partly modelled on Duchamp's own face.[57] French artist Jean Metzinger, who was influenced by Fauvism and Impressionism, painted Le Goter ("The Taste", 1911), showing a female nude drinking tea, which is often called the "Mona Lisa of Cubism",[58] a movement that the painter was associated with from 1908, and in fact he was influenced by Da Vinci's picture.[59] The influence of the Mona Lisa goes beyond painting, reaching the film composition of The General Line (1929), by Eisenstein, who said he was also influenced by the Madonna of the Rocks.[60] Salvador Dal, famous for his surrealist work, painted Self portrait as Mona Lisa in 1954.[61] In 1963 following the painting's visit to the United States, Andy Warhol created serigraph prints of multiple Mona Lisas called Thirty are Better than One, like his works of Marilyn Monroe (Twenty-five Coloured Marilyns, 1962), Elvis Presley (1964) and Campbell's soup (19611962)

Shroud of Turin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

The Shroud of Turin: modern photo of the face, positive left, negative right. Negative has been contrast enhanced. The Shroud of Turin or Turin Shroud (Italian: Sindone di Torino, Sacra Sindone) is a linen cloth bearing the image of a man who appears to have suffered physical trauma in a manner consistent with crucifixion.[1] It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, northern Italy. The image on the shroud is commonly associated with Jesus Christ, his crucifixion and burial. The origins of the shroud and its image are the subject of intense debate among scientists, theologians, historians and researchers. The Catholic Church has neither formally endorsed nor rejected the shroud, but in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the Roman Catholic devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus.[2] The image on the shroud is much clearer in black-and-white negative than in its natural sepia color. The negative image was first observed in 1898, on the reverse photographic plate of amateur photographer Secondo Pia, who was allowed to photograph it while it was being exhibited in the Turin Cathedral. In 1978 a detailed examination was carried out by a team of American scientists called STURP. They found no reliable evidence of forgery, and called the question of how the image was formed "a mystery".[3] In 1988, a controversial radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, concurred that the samples they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390.[4] Three peer-reviewed articles have since been published contending that the samples used for the dating test may not have been representative of the whole shroud.[5] Scientific and popular publications have presented diverse arguments for both authenticity and possible methods of forgery. A variety of scientific theories regarding the shroud have since been

proposed, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis. According to former Nature editor Philip Ball, "it's fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever. Not least, the nature of the image and how it was fixed on the cloth remain deeply puzzling".[6] The shroud is one of the most studied artifacts in human history, and one of the most controversial.[7][8]

Contents
[hide]

1 Description 2 History 3 Religious perspective

3.1 John Calvin on the shroud 3.2 Devotions 3.3 Miraculous image 3.4 Vatican position 4.1 Early studies 4.2 Material chemical analysis

4 Scientific perspective

4.2.1 Radiocarbon dating 4.2.2 Tests for pigments 4.3.1 Historical fabrics 4.3.2 Dirt particles 4.4.1 Blood stains 4.4.2 Flowers and pollen 4.4.3 Anatomical forensics

4.3 Material historical analysis

4.4 Biological and medical forensics

4.5 Image analysis 4.6 Hypotheses on image origin

4.6.1 Painting 4.6.2 Photographic image production 4.6.3 Dust-transfer technique 4.6.4 Bas-relief 4.6.5 Maillard reaction 4.6.6 Energy source

4.6.6.1 Corona discharge

5 Recent developments 6 References 7 Further reading 8 External links

8.1 Pro-authenticity sites 8.2 Skeptical sites

Description

Secondo Pia's 1898 negative of the image on the Shroud of Turin has an appearance suggesting a positive image. It is used as part of the devotion to Holy Face of Jesus. The shroud is rectangular, measuring approximately 4.4 1.1 m (14.3 3.7 ft). The cloth is woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils. Its most distinctive characteristic is the faint, yellowish image of a front and back view of a naked man with his hands folded across his groin. The two views are aligned along the midplane of the body and point in opposite directions. The front and back views of the head nearly meet at the middle of the cloth.[9] Reddish brown stains that have been said to include whole blood are found on the cloth, showing various wounds that, according to proponents, correlate with the yellowish image, the pathophysiology of crucifixion, and the Biblical description of the death of Jesus:[10] Markings on the lines include:[11]

one wrist bears a large, round wound, claimed to be from piercing (the second wrist is hidden by the folding of the hands) upward gouge in the side penetrating into the thoracic cavity. Proponents claim this was a post-mortem event and there are separate components of red blood cells and serum draining from the lesion small punctures around the forehead and scalp scores of linear wounds on the torso and legs. Proponents claim that the wounds are consistent with the distinctive dumbbell wounds of a Roman flagrum.

swelling of the face from severe beatings streams of blood down both arms. Proponents claim that the blood drippings from the main flow occurred in response to gravity at an angle that would occur during crucifixion no evidence of either leg being fractured large puncture wounds in the feet as if pierced by a single spike

Full length negatives of the shroud. The shroud includes images that are not easily distinguishable by the naked eye, and were first observed after the advent of photography. In May 1898 amateur Italian photographer Secondo Pia was allowed to photograph the shroud and he took the first photograph of the shroud on the evening of May 28, 1898. Pia was startled by the visible image of the negative plate in his darkroom. Negatives of the image give the appearance of a positive image, which implies that the shroud image is itself effectively a negative of some kind.[11] Pia was at first accused of doctoring his photographs, but was vindicated in 1931 when a professional photographer, Giuseppe Enrie, also photographed the shroud and his findings supported Pia's.[12] In 1978 Miller and Pellicori took ultraviolet photographs of the shroud.[13][14] The image of the "Man of the Shroud" has a beard, moustache, and shoulder-length hair parted in the middle. He is muscular and tall (various experts have measured him as from 1.70 m, or roughly 5 ft 7 in, to 1.88 m, or 6 ft 2 in).[15] Four sets of holes arranged in four L-shaped patterns appear on the Lier shroud copy in 1516.[16] [17] Fourteen large triangular patches and eight smaller ones were sewn onto the cloth by Poor Clare nuns to repair the damage from a fire in 1532 in the chapel in Chambery, France. Some burn holes and scorched areas down both sides of the linen are present, due to contact with molten silver during the fire that burned through it in places while it was folded.[18]

History
Main article: History of the Shroud of Turin

Full-length image of the Turin Shroud before the 2002 restoration. The historical records for the shroud can be separated into two time periods: before 1390 and from 1390 to the present. The period until 1390 is subject to debate and controversy among historians. Prior to the 14th century there are some congruent references such as the Pray Codex. It is often mentioned that the first certain historical record dates from 1353 or 1357.[19][20] However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.[21][22] The history from the 15th century to the present is well understood. In 1453 Margaret de Charny deeded the Shroud to the House of

Savoy. In 1578 the shroud was transferred in Turin. As of the 17th century the shroud has been displayed (e.g. in the chapel built for that purpose by Guarino Guarini[23]) and in the 19th century it was first photographed during a public exhibition. There are no definite historical records concerning the shroud prior to the 14th century. Although there are numerous reports of Jesus' burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the 14th century, there is no historical evidence that these refer to the shroud currently at Turin Cathedral.[24] A burial cloth, which some historians maintain was the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204.[25]

The pilgrim medallion of Lirey (before 1453),[26] drawing by Arthur Forgeais, 1865. Historical records seem to indicate that a shroud bearing an image of a crucified man existed in the small town of Lirey around the years 1353 to 1357 in the possession of a French Knight, Geoffroi de Charny, who died at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356.[19] However the correspondence of this shroud with the shroud in Turin, and its very origin has been debated by scholars and lay authors, with claims of forgery attributed to artists born a century apart. Some contend that the Lirey shroud was the work of a confessed forger and murderer[27] or forged by Leonardo da Vinci.[28] The history of the shroud from the 15th century is well recorded. In 1532, the shroud suffered damage from a fire in a chapel of Chambry, capital of the Savoy region, where it was stored. A drop of molten silver from the reliquary produced a symmetrically placed mark through the layers of the folded cloth. Poor Clare Nuns attempted to repair this damage with patches. In 1578 Emmanuel Philibert, Duke of Savoy ordered the cloth to be brought from Chambry to Turin and it has remained at Turin ever since. Repairs were made to the shroud in 1694 by Sebastian Valfr to improve the repairs of the Poor Clare nuns.[29] Further repairs were made in 1868 by Clotilde of Savoy. The shroud remained the property of the House of Savoy until 1983, when it was given to the Holy See, the rule of the House of Savoy having ended in 1946.[30] A fire, possibly caused by arson, threatened the shroud on 11 April 1997.[31] In 2002, the Holy See had the shroud restored. The cloth backing and thirty patches were removed, making it possible to photograph and scan the reverse side of the cloth, which had been hidden from view. A ghostly part-image of the body was found on the back of the shroud in 2004. The most recent public exhibition of the Shroud was in 2010.

Religious perspective
Religious beliefs about the burial cloths of Jesus have existed for centuries. The Gospels of Matthew[27:5960], Mark[15:46] and Luke[23:53] state that Joseph of Arimathea wrapped the body of

Jesus in a piece of linen cloth and placed it in a new tomb. The Gospel of John[19:3840] refers to strips of linen used by Joseph of Arimathea and John[20:67] states that Apostle Peter found multiple pieces of burial cloth after the tomb was found open, strips of linen cloth for the body and a separate cloth for the head. Although pieces of burial cloths of Jesus are claimed by at least four churches in France and three in Italy, none has gathered as much religious following as the Shroud of Turin.[32] The religious beliefs and practices associated with the shroud predate historical and scientific discussions and have continued in the 21st century, although the Catholic Church has never claimed its authenticity.[33] An example is the Holy Face Medal bearing the image from the shroud, worn by some Catholics.[34]

John Calvin on the shroud

In 1543 John Calvin, in his Treatise on Relics, wrote of the shroud, which was then at Nice (it was moved to Turin in 1578), "How is it possible that those sacred historians, who carefully related all the miracles that took place at Christs death, should have omitted to mention one so remarkable as the likeness of the body of our Lord remaining on its wrapping sheet?" He also noted that, according to St. John, there was one sheet covering Jesus's body, and a separate cloth covering his head. He then stated that "either St. John is a liar," or else anyone who promotes such a shroud is "convicted of falsehood and deceit".[35]

Devotions
Although the shroud image is currently associated with Catholic devotions to the Holy Face of Jesus, the devotions themselves predate Secondo Pia's 1898 photograph. Such devotions had been started in 1844 by the Carmelite nun Marie of St Peter (based on "pre-crucifixion" images associated with the Veil of Veronica) and promoted by Leo Dupont, also called the Apostle of the Holy Face. In 1851 Leo Dupont formed the "Archconfraternity of the Holy Face" in Tours, France, well before Secondo Pia took the photograph of the shroud.[36]

Miraculous image
Further information: Acheiropoieta

A poster advertising the 1898 exhibition of the shroud in Turin. Secondo Pia's photograph was taken a few weeks too late to be included in the poster. The image on the poster includes a painted face, not obtained from Pia's photograph. The religious concept of "miraculous image" has been applied to the Shroud of Turin, as it has been applied to other religious artifacts such as the image of the Virgin Mary on the cloak in the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe on Tepeyac hill in Mexico.[37][38] Without debating scientific issues, some believers state as a matter of faith that empirical analysis and scientific methods will perhaps never advance to a level sufficient for understanding the divine methods used for image formation on the shroud, since the body around whom the shroud was wrapped was not merely human, but divine, and believe that the image on the shroud was miraculously produced at the moment of Resurrection.[39][40]

Vatican position
Antipope Clement VII refrained from expressing his opinion on the shroud; however, subsequent popes from Julius II on took its authenticity for granted.[41] The Vatican newspaper Osservatore Romano covered the story of Secondo Pia's photograph of May 28, 1898 in its June 15, 1898 edition, but it did so with no comment and thereafter Church officials generally refrained from officially commenting on the photograph for almost half a century. The first official association between the image on the Shroud and the Catholic Church was made in 1940 based on the formal request by Sister Maria Pierina De Micheli to the curia in Milan to obtain authorization to produce a medal with the image. The authorization was granted and the first medal with the image was offered to Pope Pius XII who approved the medal. The image was then used on what became known as the Holy Face Medal worn by many Catholics, initially as a means of protection during World War II. In 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus, and declared its feast to be celebrated every year the day before Ash Wednesday.[42][43] Following the approval by Pope Pius XII, Catholic devotions to the Holy Face of Jesus have been almost exclusively associated with the image on the shroud. In 1983 the Shroud was given to the Holy See by the House of Savoy.[38] However, as with all relics of this kind, the Roman Catholic Church made no pronouncements claiming whether it is Jesus' burial shroud, or if it is a forgery. As with other approved Catholic devotions, the matter has been left to the personal decision of the faithful, as long as the Church does not issue a future notification to the contrary. In the Church's view, whether the cloth is authentic or not has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of what Jesus taught nor on the saving power of his death and resurrection.[44] Pope John Paul II stated in 1998 that:[45] "Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet".[46] Pope John Paul II showed himself to be deeply moved by the image of the Shroud and arranged for public showings in 1998 and 2000. In his address at the Turin Cathedral on Sunday May 24, 1998 (the occasion of the 100th year of Secondo Pia's May 28, 1898 photograph), he said:[47] "The Shroud is an image of God's love as well as of human sin [...] The imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one's fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the

innocent in every age." In 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that the Shroud of Turin is a truly mysterious image, which no human artistry was capable of producing. In some inexplicable way, it appeared imprinted upon cloth and claimed to show the true face of Christ, the crucified and risen Lord."[48] Pope Benedict XVI has not publicly commented on the Shroud's authenticity, but has taken steps that indirectly affect the Shroud. In June 2008 he approved the public display of the Shroud in the spring of 2010 and stated that he would like to go to Turin to see it along with other pilgrims. [49] During his visit in Turin on Sunday May 2, 2010, Benedict XVI described the Shroud of Turin as an "extraordinary Icon", the "Icon of Holy Saturday [...] corresponding in every way to what the Gospels tell us of Jesus", "an Icon written in blood, the blood of a man who was scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified and whose right side was pierced".[50] The pope said also that in the Turin Shroud "we see, as in a mirror, our suffering in the suffering of Christ".[51] On May 30, 2010, Benedict XVI beatified Sister Maria Pierina De Micheli who coined the Holy Face Medal, based on Secondo Pia's photograph of the Shroud.[52]

Scientific perspective

Station biologique de Roscoff in Brittany, France where the first scientific analysis of the photographs of the shroud was performed by Yves Delage in 1902.[53] The term sindonology (from the Greek sindon, the word used in the Gospel of Mark[15:46] to describe the type of the burial cloth of Jesus) is used to refer to the formal study of the Shroud. Secondo Pia's 1898 photographs of the shroud allowed the scientific community to begin to study it. A variety of scientific theories regarding the shroud have since been proposed, based on disciplines ranging from chemistry to biology and medical forensics to optical image analysis. Very few scientists (e.g. STURP and the Radiocarbon dating teams) have had direct access to the shroud or very small samples from it, and most theories have been proposed "long distance" by the analysis of images, or via secondary sources. The scientific approaches to the study of the Shroud fall into three groups: material analysis (both chemical and historical), biology and medical forensics and image analysis.

Early studies
The initial steps towards the scientific study of the shroud were taken soon after the first set of black and white photographs became available early in the 20th century. In 1902 Yves Delage, a French professor of comparative anatomy published the first study on the subject.[53] Delage declared the image anatomically flawless and argued that the features of rigor mortis, wounds, and blood flows were evidence that the image was formed by direct or indirect contact with a corpse. William Meacham mentions several other medical studies between 1936 and 1981 that agree with Delage.[54] However, these were all indirect studies without access to the shroud itself.

The first direct examination of the shroud by a scientific team was undertaken in 19691973 in order to advise on preservation of the shroud and determine specific testing methods. This led to the appointment of an 11-member Turin Commission to advise on the preservation of the relic and on specific testing. Five of the commission members were scientists, and preliminary studies of samples of the fabric were conducted in 1973.[54] In 1976 physicist John P. Jackson, thermodynamicist Eric Jumper and photographer William Mottern used image analysis technologies developed in aerospace science for analyzing the images of the Shroud. In 1977 these three scientists and over thirty others formed the Shroud of Turin Research Project. In 1978 this group, often called STURP, was given direct access to the Shroud.

Material chemical analysis

Phase contrast microscopic view of image-bearing fiber from the Shroud of Turin. Carbohydrate layer is visible along top edge. The lower-right edge shows that coating is missing. The coating can be scraped off or removed with adhesive or diimide.[citation needed] Radiocarbon dating Main article: Radiocarbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded that the shroud material dated to 12601390 AD, with 95% confidence.[4] This 13th to 14th century dating matches the first appearance of the shroud in church history,[55] and is somewhat later than art historian W.S.A. Dale's estimate of an 11th century date based on art-historical grounds.[56] Criticisms have been raised regarding the sample taken for testing (it may have come from medieval repair fragments), although not the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself.[57][58][59] Tests for pigments In 1970s a special eleven-member Turin Commission conducted several tests. Conventional and electron microscopic examination of the Shroud at that time revealed an absence of heterogeneous coloring material or pigment.[54] In 1979, Walter McCrone, upon analyzing the samples he was given by STURP, concluded that the image is actually made up of billions of submicrometre pigment particles. The only fibrils that had been made available for testing of the stains were those that remained affixed to custom-designed adhesive tape applied to thirty-two different sections of the image.[60]

John Heller and Alan Adler examined the same samples and agreed with McCrone's result that the cloth contains iron oxide. However, they concluded, the exceptional purity of the chemical and comparisons with other ancient textiles showed that, while retting flax absorbs iron selectively, the iron itself was not the source of the image on the shroud.[61][62] Other microscopic analysis of the fibers seems to indicate that the image is strictly limited to the carbohydrate layer, with no additional layer of pigment visible.[63]

Material historical analysis

Historical fabrics In 2000, fragments of a burial shroud from the 1st century were discovered in a tomb near Jerusalem, believed to have belonged to a Jewish high priest or member of the aristocracy. The shroud was composed of a simple two-way weave, unlike the complex weave of the Turin Shroud. Based on this discovery, the researchers stated that the Turin Shroud did not originate from Jesus-era Jerusalem.[64][65][66]

A Roman loom, c. 2nd century CE. According to textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg of Hamburg, a seam in the cloth corresponds to a fabric found only at the fortress of Masada near the Dead Sea, which dated to the 1st century. The weaving pattern, 3:1 twill, is consistent with first-century Syrian design, according to the appraisal of Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium. Flury-Lemberg stated, "The linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which would speak against its origin as a high-quality product of the textile workers of the first century."[67] In 1999, Mark Guscin investigated the relationship between the shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo, claimed as the cloth that covered the head of Jesus in the Gospel of John[20:67] when the empty tomb was discovered. The Sudarium is also reported to have type AB blood stains. Guscin concluded that the two cloths covered the same head at two distinct, but close moments of time. Avinoam Danin (see below) concurred with this analysis, adding that the pollen grains in the Sudarium match those of the shroud.[68] Skeptics criticize the polarized image overlay technique of Guscin and suggest that pollen from Jerusalem could have followed any number of paths to find its way to the sudarium.[69] In 2002, Aldo Guerreschi and Michele Salcito argued that many of these marks on the fabric of the shroud stem from a much earlier time because the symmetries correspond more to the folding that would have been necessary to store the cloth in a clay jar (like cloth samples at Qumran) than to that necessary to store it in the reliquary that housed it in 1532.[70] Dirt particles

A piece of travertine. Joseph Kohlbeck from the Hercules Aerospace Company in Utah and Richard Levi-Setti of the Enrico Fermi Institute examined some dirt particles from the Shroud surface. The dirt was found to be travertine aragonite limestone.[71] Using a high-resolution microprobe, Levi-Setti and Kolbeck compared the spectra of samples taken from the Shroud with samples of limestone from ancient Jerusalem tombs. The chemical signatures of the Shroud samples and the tomb limestone were found identical except for minute fragments of cellulose linen fiber that could not be separated from the Shroud samples.[72]

Biological and medical forensics

Blood stains There are several reddish stains on the shroud suggesting blood, but is uncertain whether these stains were produced at the same time as the image, or afterwards.[73] McCrone (see painting hypothesis) identified these as containing iron oxide, theorizing that its presence was likely due to simple pigment materials used in medieval times. Other researchers, including Alan Adler, identified the reddish stains as blood and interpreted the iron oxide as a natural residue of hemoglobin. Heller and Adler further studied the dark red stains and determined and identified hemoglobin, establishing, within claimed scientific certainty, the presence of porphyrin, bilirubin, albumin, and protein.[74] Working independently forensic pathologist Pier Luigi Baima Bollone, concurred with Heller and Adler's findings and identified the blood as AB blood group.[75] Subsequently, STURP sent blood flecks to the laboratory devoted to the study of ancient blood at the State University of New York (SUNY). Dr. Andrew Merriwether at SUNY stated that no blood typing could be confirmed, and the DNA was badly fragmented. He stated that it is almost certain that the blood spots are blood, but no definitive statements can be made about its nature or provenience, i.e., whether it is male and from the Near East."[76] Joe Nickell argues that results similar to Heller and Adler's could be obtained from tempera paint.[77] Skeptics also cite other forensic blood tests whose results dispute the authenticity of the Shroud[69] that the blood could belong to a person handling the shroud, and that the apparent blood flows on the shroud are unrealistically neat.[69][78][79] Flowers and pollen

A Chrysanthemum coronarium In 1997 Avinoam Danin, a botanist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, reported that he had identified the type of Chrysanthemum coronarium, Cistus creticus and Zygophyllum whose pressed image on the shroud was first noticed by Alan Whanger in 1985 on the photographs of the shroud taken in 1931. He reported that the outlines of the flowering plants would point to March or April and the environs of Jerusalem.[80][81] In a separate report in 1978 Danin and Uri Baruch reported on the pollen grains on the cloth samples, stating that they were appropriate to the spring in Israel.[82] Max Frei, a Swiss police criminologist who initially obtained pollen from the shroud during the STURP investigation stated that of the 58 different types of pollens found, 45 were from the Jerusalem area, while 6 were from the eastern Middle East, with one pollen species growing exclusively in Constantinople, and two found in Edessa, Turkey.[83] Mark Antonacci argues that the pollen evidence and flower images are inherently interwoven and strengthen each other.[84] Skeptics have argued that the flower images are too faint for Danin's determination to be definite, that an independent review of the pollen strands showed that one strand out of the 26 provided contained significantly more pollen than the others, perhaps pointing to deliberate contamination.[85] Skeptics also argue that Max Frei had previously been duped in his examination of the Hitler Diaries and that he may have also been duped in this case, or may have introduced the pollens himself.[86] J. Beaulieau has stated that Frei was a self-taught amateur palynologist, was not properly trained, and that his sample was too small.[87] In 2008 Avinoam Danin reported analysis based on the ultraviolet photographs of Miller and Pellicori[13][14] taken in 1978. Danin reported five new species of flower, which also bloom in March and April and stated that a comparison of the 1931 black and white photographs and the 1978 ultraviolet images indicate that the flower images are genuine and not the artifact of a specific method of photography.[88] Anatomical forensics A number of studies on the anatomical consistency of the image on the shroud and the nature of the wounds on it have been performed, following the initial study by Yves Delage in 1902.[53]

While Delage declared the image anatomically flawless, others have presented arguments to support both authenticity and forgery. In 1950 physician Pierre Barbet wrote a long study called A Doctor at Calvary which was later published as a book.[89] Barbet stated that his experience as a battlefield surgeon during World War I led him to conclude that the image on the shroud was authentic, anatomically correct and consistent with crucifixion.[90] In 1997 physician and forensic pathologist Robert Bucklin constructed a scenario of how a systematic autopsy on the man of the shroud would have been conducted. He noted the series of traumatic injuries which extend from the shoulder areas to the lower portion of the back, which he considered consistent with whipping; and marks on the right shoulder blade which he concluded were signs of carrying a heavy object. Bucklin concluded that the image was of a real person, subject to crucifixion.[91] For over a decade, medical examiner Frederick Zugibe performed a number of studies using himself and volunteers suspended from a cross, and presented his conclusions in a book in 1998. [92] Zugibe considers the shroud image and its proportions as authentic, but disagrees with Barbet and Bucklin on various details such as blood flow. Zugibe concluded that the image on the shroud is of the body of a man, but that the body had been washed.[93] In 2001, Pierluigi Baima Bollone, a professor of forensic medicine in Turin, stated that the forensic examination of the wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud indicate that the image was that of the dead body of a man who was whipped, wounded around the head by a pointed instrument and nailed at the extremities before dying.[94] In 2010 Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical measurements, wrote that "apart from the hands afterward placed on the pubic area, the front and back images are compatible with the Shroud being used to wrap the body of a man 1752 cm tall, which, due to cadaveric rigidity, remained in the same position it would have assumed during crucifixion".[95] Artist Isabel Piczek stated in 1995 that while a general research opinion sees a flatly reclining body on the Shroud, the professional figurative artist can see substantial differences from a flatly reclining position. She stated that the professional arts cannot find discrepancies and distortions in the anatomy of the "Shroud Man".[96] Artist Lillian Schwartz, who had previously claimed to have matched the face of the Mona Lisa to a self-portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, stated in 2009 that the proportions of the face image on the shroud are correct, and that they match the dimensions of the face of da Vinci.[97] Authors Joe Nickell, in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[98][99]

Image analysis
Both Digital image processing and analog techniques have been applied to the shroud images. The VP8 Image Analyzer was produced by Pete Schumacher of Interpretations Systems Incorporated[100] and was delivered by him to John Jackson and Eric Jumper in Colorado Springs in 1976. It showed the Shroud image has properties that, when processed through this analog

computer, yield a 3-dimensional image.[101] Rather than being like a photographic negative, the shroud image unexpectedly has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image of the man when the darker parts of the image are interpreted to be those features of the man that were closest to the shroud and the lighter areas of the image those features that were farthest. This is not a property that occurs in photography, and researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief.[102] NASA researchers Jackson, Jumper, and Stephenson report detecting the impressions of coins placed on both eyes after a digital study in 1978.[103] The two-lepton coin on the right eyelid was presumably coined under Pilate in 29-30,[104] while the one-lepton coin on the left eyebrow was minted in 29.[105] Greek and Latin letters were reported as written near the face in 1979. These were further studied by Andr Marion, professor at the cole suprieure d'optique and his student Anne Laure Courage, in 1997. Subsequently, computerized analysis and microdensitometer, other writings were reported, among them INNECEM (a shortened form of Latin "in necem ibis""you will go to death"), NNAZAPE(N)NUS (Nazarene), IHSOY (Jesus) and IC (Iesus Chrestus). The uncertain letters IBE(R?) have been conjectured as "Tiberius".[106] Linguist Mark Guscin disputed the reports of Marion and Courage. He stated that the inscriptions made little grammatical or historical sense and that they did not appear on the slides that Marion and Courage indicated.[107] The authenticity of the alleged coins has also come under dispute.[108] In 2004, in an article in the Journal of Optics, Fanti and Maggiolo reported finding a faint second face on the backside of the cloth, after the 2002 restoration.[109] The front image of the Turin Shroud, 1.95 m long, is not directly compatible with the back image, 2.02 m long.[110]

Hypotheses on image origin

Many hypotheses have been formulated and tested to explain the image on the Shroud. To date, despite numerous and often media-related claims, it can be said that "the body image of the Turin Shroud has not yet been explained by traditional science; so a great interest in a possible mechanism of image formation still exists."[111] Painting

A thermographic image of a glass of water. The technique used for producing the image is, according to W. McCrone, already described in a book about medieval painting published in 1847 by Charles Lock Eastlake ("Methods and Materials of Painting of the Great Schools and Masters"). Eastlake describes in the chapter "Practice of Painting Generally During the XIVth Century" a special technique of painting on

linen using tempera paint, which produces images with unusual transparent featureswhich McCrone compares to the image on the shroud.[112] This hypothesis was declared to be unsound as the X-ray fluorescence examination, as well as infrared thermography, did not point out any pigment.[113][114][115] It was also found that 25 different solvents, among them water, do not reduce or sponge out the image.[116] The non-paint origin has been further claimed by Fourier transform of the image: common paintings show a directionality that is absent from the Turin Shroud.[117] Photographic image production According to the art historian Nicholas Allen the image on the shroud was formed by a photographic technique in the 13th century.[118] Allen maintains that techniques already available before the 14th centurye.g., as described in the Book of Optics, which was at just that time translated from Arabic to Latinwere sufficient to produce primitive photographs, and that people familiar with these techniques would have been able to produce an image as found on the shroud. To demonstrate this, he successfully produced photographic images similar to the shroud using only techniques and materials available at the time the shroud was made. He described his results in his PhD Thesis,[119] in papers published in several science journals,[120][121] and in a book.
[122]

However a double photographic exposure, needed in that case, should have considered the distances and in such case there would be areas of photographic superimposition with different lights and shades. The distances on Shroud instead correspond to the body position.[123] Dust-transfer technique Scientists Emily Craig and Randall Bresee have attempted to recreate the likenesses of the shroud through the dust-transfer technique, which could have been done by medieval arts. They first did a carbon-dust drawing of a Jesus-like face (using collagen dust) on a newsprint made from wood pulp (which is similar to 13th and 14th century paper). They next placed the drawing on a table and covered it with a piece of linen. They then pressed the linen against the newsprint by firmly rubbing with the flat side of a wooden spoon. By doing this they managed to create a reddish brown image with a life-like positive likeness of a person, a three dimensional image and no sign of brush strokes.[124] However, according to Fanti and Moroni, this does not reproduce many special features of the Shroud at microscopic level.[125] Bas-relief Another hypothesis suggests that the Shroud may have been formed using a bas-relief sculpture. Researcher Jacques di Costanzo, noting that the Shroud image seems to have a three-dimensional quality, suggested that perhaps the image was formed using an actual three-dimensional object, such as a sculpture. While wrapping a cloth around a life-sized statue would result in a distorted image, placing a cloth over a bas-relief would result in an image like the one seen on the shroud. To demonstrate the plausibility of his hypothesis, Costanzo constructed a bas-relief of a Jesuslike face and draped wet linen over the bas-relief. After the linen dried, he dabbed it with a mixture of ferric oxide and gelatine. The result was an image similar to that of the Shroud. The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.[126] Similar results have been obtained by former stage magician and author Joe Nickell. Instead of painting, the bas-relief could also be heated and used to burn an image into the cloth.

According to Fanti and Moroni, after comparing the histograms of 256 different grey levels, it was found that the image obtained with a bas-relief has grey values included between 60 and 256 levels, but it is much contrasted with wide areas of white saturation (levels included between 245 and 256) and lacks of intermediate grey levels (levels included between 160 and 200). The face image on the Shroud instead has grey tonalities that vary in the same values field (between 60 and 256), but the white saturation is much less marked and the histogram is practically flat in correspondence of the intermediate grey levels (levels included between 160 and 200).[127] Maillard reaction The Maillard reaction is a form of non-enzymatic browning involving an amino acid and a reducing sugar. The cellulose fibers of the shroud are coated with a thin carbohydrate layer of starch fractions, various sugars, and other impurities. In a paper entitled "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction may explain the image formation,"[128] Raymond Rogers and Anna Arnoldi propose that amines from a recently deceased human body may have undergone Maillard reactions with this carbohydrate layer within a reasonable period of time, before liquid decomposition products stained or damaged the cloth. The gases produced by a dead body are extremely reactive chemically and within a few hours, in an environment such as a tomb, a body starts to produce heavier amines in its tissues such as putrescine and cadaverine. However the potential source for amines required for the reaction is a decomposing body,[129] while no signs of decomposition have been found on the Shroud.[130] The image resolution and the uniform coloration of the linen resolution seem to be not compatible with a mechanism involving diffusion.[131] Alan A. Mills argued that the image was formed by the chemical reaction auto-oxidation. He noted that the image corresponds to what would have been produced by a volatile chemical if the intensity of the color change were inversely proportional to the distance from the body of a loosely draped cloth.[132] Energy source This section discusses energy source hypotheses. However, the hypotheses presented here do not account for where the energy came from, e.g. the corona discharge requires high levels of energy, which would have needed to have been generated from a human body. None of the papers cited in this section have presented a detailed analysis regarding the application of the law of conservation of energy with respect to the generation of the energy needed to support the hypotheses presented. Moreover, none of these suggestions have produced a similar image in a scientific setting and remain untested hypotheses. Since 1930[133] several researchers (J. Jackson, G. Fanti, T. Trenn, T. Phillips, J.-B. Rinaudo and others) endorsed the flash-like irradiation hypothesis. It was suggested that the relatively high definition of the image details can be obtained through the energy source (specifically, protonic) acting from inside.[134] The Russian researcher Alexander Belyakov proposed an intense, but short flashlight source, which lasted some hundredths of second.[135] Some other authors suggest the X-radiation[136] or a burst of directional ultraviolet radiation may have played a role in the formation of the Shroud image.[137] From the image characteristics, several researchers have theorized that the radiant source was prevalently vertical. These theories do not include the scientific discussion of a method by which the energy could have been produced.[116] A harsh criticism of the energy source hypothesis comes from Raymond N. Rogers who was involved in work with The Shroud since the conception of the STURP project in 1978. As he states, "If any form of radiation (thermal, electromagnetic, or particle) degraded the cellulose of the linen fibers to produce the image color, it would have had to penetrate the entire diameter of

a fiber in order to color its back surface. Some lower fibers are colored, requiring more penetration. Radiation that penetrated the entire 10-15-mm-diameter of a fiber would certainly color the walls of the medulla. All image fibers show color on their surfaces but not in the medullas.".[138]
Corona discharge

During restoration in 2002, the back of the cloth was photographed and scanned for the first time. An article on this subject by Giulio Fanti and others envisages the electrostatic corona discharge as the probable mechanism to produce the images of the body in the Shroud.[139] Congruent with that mechanism, they also describe an image on the reverse side of the fabric, much fainter than that on the front view of the body, consisting primarily of the face and perhaps hands. As with the front picture, it is entirely superficial, with coloration limited to the carbohydrate layer. The images correspond to, and are in registration with, those on the other side of the cloth. No image is detectable in the reverse side of the dorsal view of the body. Results of some new experiments propose that a Corona discharge mechanism could have been involved in the Turin Shroud body image formation, but it is impossible to reproduce all the characteristics of the image in a laboratory because the energy source required is too high.[131][140] This theory and the experiment have not addressed a method by which the high level of energy could have been controlled and directed, without damaging the Shroud.[dubious discuss]

Recent developments
In 2009, Barbara Frale, a researcher in the Vatican Secret Archives, published two books on the Shroud of Turin.[141] She thinks that the shroud had been kept by the Templars after 1204[142] and that it is possible to read on the image the burial certificate of Jesus the Nazarene, or Jesus of Nazareth, imprinted in fragments of Greek, Hebrew and Latin writing.[143] Her methodology has been criticized.[144][145] On October 5, 2009, Luigi Garlaschelli, professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, announced that he had made a full size reproduction of the Shroud of Turin using only medieval technologies. Garlaschelli placed a linen sheet over a volunteer and then rubbed it with an acidic pigment. The shroud was then aged in an oven before being washed to remove the pigment. He then added blood stains, scorches and water stains to replicate the original.[146] But according to Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermic measurements at the University of Padua, "the technique itself seems unable to produce an image having the most critical Turin Shroud image characteristics".[147][148] In 2010, professors of statistics Marco Riani and Anthony C. Atkinson wrote in a scientific paper that the statistical analysis of the raw dates obtained from the three laboratories for the radiocarbon test suggests the presence of an important contamination in the samples.[149] A team of graphic artists tried to recreate the real face of Jesus in a special two-hour documentary on the History Channel broadcast for the first time in March 2010. The image was made by taking information and blood encoded on the Turin Shroud and transforming it into a 3D image.[150] The Shroud was placed back on public display (the 18th time in its history) in Turin from 10 April to 23 May 2010. According to Church officials, more than 2 million visitors came to see the Shroud.[151] In December 2010 Professor Timothy Jull, editor of Radiocarbon, coauthored an article with a textile expert in this peer-reviewed journal.[152] They analyzed an unknown sample of 1988 and

concluded that they found no evidence of a repair. However this article was strongly criticized, even by traditional skeptics.[153]

References
The Man Behind the Shroud? There is a very credible theory that Leonardo created the Shroud of Turin by a photographic technique. Could it be his face? Radio carbon dating of the fabric of the shroud places it a while before Leonardo's birth so clearly in is a medieval fake as were many relicks. Leonardo wasn't stupid; if he were to try to fake it he would have used old cloth so the dating is consistent. The Mona Lisa certainly looks like Leonardo. Whether the face on the shroud is him - who knows? It seems to have some similarities. There is a statue of Leonardo I saw which looks rather spookily like the shroud. Who knows? We probaly never will but given the photographic qualities of the shroud and the fact that Leonardo was using camera obscura and showed interest in photosenstive chemicals while the transformed shroud resurfaced in a village near Leonardo's workshop at a time when he was at his height, it make's you think...

Arguably the world's most celebrated painting, the Mona Lisa by Leonardo da Vinci (which I was once privileged to see) has attracted attention ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. Now an Italian theorist claims he has discovered miniscule lettersvisible only by high magnificationin the eyes of the famous lady. Where have we heard something like this before? As early as 1980, a Chicago priest named Francis Filas claimed to have found four tiny Greek letters and a staff design in the area of the right eye of the figure on the Shroud of Turin. (With its image of a seemingly crucified man, many believe the cloth to have been Jesus' burial linen.) Filas (whom I debated on a radio program) thought he had thus identified the imprint of a "Roman Coin." He believed this authenticated the controversial cloth which, however, has since been proved a fourteenth-century forgery. Filas' claims were ridiculed by several scientists, even pro-shroud ones, who observed that the magnified weave patterns and extraneous markings on the cloth functioned rather like a Rorschach test, permitting one to see whatever one wanted to see. Indeed, others have "discovered" on the shroud imprints of flowers and various crucifixion items including hammer and nails, a spear, and many other imagined items as well as ancient Latin and Greek words such as "Jesus" and "Nazareth." (For more, see my Inquest on the Shroud of Turin , 1998, pp. 38-39, and Relics of the Christ , 2007, p. 142.) Nevertheless, proponents of another religious icon, Mexico's Image of Guadalupe, began to make discoveries in the eyes of that revered picture of the Virgin Mary. Proponents believe the Image miraculously appeared on a peasant's cloak in 1531 although it is actually an artist's painting. During research, several ophthalmologists and a computer expert discovered a miniature image supposed to be "a bearded Spaniard" in the figure's right eye. Subsequently they found other such images, although some writers wondered if they might be merely like the pictures seen in clouds, the result of a "pious imagination." (See my Secrets of the Supernatural , 1988, pp. 114-115, and The Mystery Chronicles , 2004, pp. 51-54.)

Now, I do not know if these examples inspired Italian cultural specialist Silvano Vinceti, but his claims about Leonardi's Mona Lisa have been likened to notions found in The Da Vinci Code . How seriously we should regard them is indicated by his own equivocal statements: "In the right eye appear to be the letters LV which could well stand for his name, Leonardo da Vinci, while in the left eye there are also symbols but they are not as defined. It is very difficult to make them out clearly but they appear to be the letters CE, or it could be the letter B. In the arch of the bridge in the background the number 72 can be seen or it could be an L and the number 2. You have to remember the picture is almost 500 years old so it is not as sharp and clear as when first painted. From the preliminary investigations we have carried out we are confident they are not a mistake and were put there by the artist." (See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1337976/Real-life-Da-Vinci-Code-Tiny-numbers-letters-discovered-Mona-Lisa.html; accessed Dec. 13, 2010.) Mr. Vinceti seems unaware of the phenomenon of simulacra , images seen by the mind's tendency (called pareidolia ) to "recognize" common shapes in random patternslike the man in the moon or the famous image of Jesus produced by skillet burns on a tortilla. (See my Adventures in Paranormal Investigation , 2007, pp. 18-26.) In fact Mr. Vinceti has not examined the actual Leonardo painting, but has only studied high-definition scanned photographs. Still, he opines that the number 7 could refer to the biblical creation and 2 to the male-female duality (according to an AP article in The Buf