Newsgroup sci.archaeology 52624

Directory

In article , Peter
Metcalfe  wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Dec 1996, Bruce L Grubb wrote:
> 
> : In article <32BCBF51.64FD@erols.com>, Rodney Small 
> : wrote:
> : 
> : > Don Lindsay wrote:
> : > > 
> : > > Well, one technique that was used was to interview the artist who
> : > > painted the shroud.
> : > > 
> : > > When the shroud first appeared, the Bishop of Turin did exactly
> : > > that. He wrote a letter to the Vatican, saying he had done so. That
> : > > letter still exists in the Vatican archives. Which is why the
> : > > Catholic Church does _not_ hold the shroud to be a true relic.
> : > 
> : > If you can produce ANY documentation of the "letter" that "still
> : > exists," I would like to see it.  Frankly, your claim sounds either
like a 
> : > fourth hand legend or was made up out of whole cloth, so to speak.
> 
> The letter does exist.  Unfortunately it is Sunday and close to Xmas
> so I can't provide any references for it.
I was luckier as there was a repeat of one of the many specials on the
Shroud and they mention this letter so yes it does exist.  BUT the letter
is discounted because for whatever the Shroud is it is NOT a painting and
the letter talks about the Shroud being a -painting- and the Biship having
talked to the -painter- of the Shroud.  So according to the special due to
this and numberous other factual inaccuracies in the Bishop's letter about
the Shroud the letter is reguarded as a non-issue.
The latest theory on the Shroud is that is the world's first photographic
negative produced by a Camera Obscura and made by none other than Leonardo
da Vinci.  Using matterals available in Leonardo's time a couple have
dupliced the Shroud (sans the bodily fluids).  As with the Shroud these
images have a wispy appearence as a positive and yet that haunting 3D
quality as a negative.
Even if not by Leonardo all the information to produce the Shroud were
there: Leonardo's detailing of a Camera Obscura (artifical eye) and the
materials to make a photosensitive mixture (15th century paint
ingrediants).  The exact nature of the mixture could have been found out
by trial and error.
> : Given that the Church is quite quick to denouce relics that it knows 
> : to be false and state that they should not be veneratated and the Church
> : has not done so on the Shroud I would say that this is a legend.
> 
> Perhaps you can give examples of relics denounced by the church?  I
> don't hear of denunciations of the two heads of St John the Baptist
> for example.  
'Denounce' was perhaps too strong a word because in Church terms a
'denoucement' simple means that an announcement that a relic is likely not
real and/or holy and therefore should not be verneratied.

In article <19961222224047485411@kip1322.calvacom.fr> jd20@calvacom.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fr=E9d=E9ric_Davidovits?=) writes:
>Peter van Rossum quoted four references, three from one side and only
>one from the other side . I am providing the complete list which
>contains eight references.
>F. Davidovits
I'm not sure if this was an attempt to say if my ref. list was skewed
or not, but thanks for providing the complete list.  The reason I didn't
supply all the refs. is because I knew that most provided followups on
the succeeding pages so I figured anyone could figure to read them as
well - you'd have to be blind not to see the responses.  
Sorry if I misinterpreted your statements above and what you were trying 
to say - a major drawback of the net in that its too easy to take offense 
where none is necessarily intended.
Peter van Rossum
PMV100@PSU.EDU