Home > Image Theory, Other Blogs > More over at Stephen Jones’ blog on the Vignon markings

More over at Stephen Jones’ blog on the Vignon markings

February 16, 2012

imageStephen Jones continues his postings on the Vignon markings:

[A]s can be seen above, the Ravenna Pantocrator mosaic has at least thirteen of the fifteen Vignon markings on the Shroud [see part #2 (1)] namely: "(2) three-sided `square’ between brows, (3) V shape at bridge of nose, (4) second V within marking 2, (5) raised right eyebrow, (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, (10) heavy line under lower lip, (11) hairless area between lower lip and beard, … (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair" [3]

I do find the Vignon markings very telling, when considered collectively, in large numbers. But we must be careful when considering them independently or just a few at a time. Jones is sensitive to that.

For instance, what are we to make of the “three-sided `square’ between brows,” sometimes referred to as a squared off U or a topless box? Too much, sometimes. It could be a defect in the cloth that was seen by an artist as a facial feature. It could be that it really was a feature of Jesus’ face. Or it could be, as some have suggested, an object resting on the face, a phylactery perhaps.

I recall a discussion when someone said it must be a defect of the cloth because Jesus was too young to have such an old-man wrinkle. I have a three-sided square in exactly the same place, but I’m old. So I asked my young thirtyish Jewish neighbor to furl his brow, just as I showed him I could do, to see if a young Jesus could have this feature. It didn’t work. However, another neighbor who is half Welsh and half Italian and is only twenty-seven years old can make a perfect topless box above his nose by squinting just slightly in bright sunlight. If I trust only some of the Vignon markings, then since Leonardo da Vinci was at least half Italian, I must conclude that the shroud is a medieval photograph of him taken in bright sunlight.

imageI did try to find a picture of Leonardo da Vinci with the feature. There weren’t all that many pictures of the old man. But I did find pictures of another Leonardo with a topless box above his nose. And he is a young fellow. And Italian. This should cause Picknett and Prince to rethink their theory. It cannot have been the great medieval photographer, Leonardo; no topless box on him. 

I do think the Vignon markings may tell us something. We must exercise care, however.


See:The Shroud of Turin: Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (2)

Categories: Image Theory, Other Blogs
  1. ArtScience
    February 16, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    I’ve always been curious about those two strands of hair coming down from the hair line ….it seems quite widespread in depictions of Jesus from 500 onwards, but looking at the Shroud, they are not the most obvious of features. I’m looking at the picture of the Shroud’s head via the ShroudScope (cool name!) viewer
    and can just about make out two darker areas (on the negative image) in the middle at the hairline (one strand of which leads into the blood stain shaped like a reflected 3). Is this what inspired the two strands to appear in the depictions? Not exactly damning evidence, but intriguing. A good trick from my artist days, if you want to see broad tonal differences and not be distracted by details, is to squint through semi closed eyelids…then I can just about see the two strands or at least vaguely convince myself I do.

  2. Ron
    February 16, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    It may sound simplistic, but I always seemed to find a correlation of the two strands as a depiction of the two blood traces seen on the hair on the right of the natural image. Also considering that maybe depicting blood was not a pleasant thing to do, so they just painted the two blood traces has hair???…Maybe extreme conjecture on my part, but who knows?


  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: