Mona Lisa's Identity 'About To Be Revealed'

Experts have opened a tomb to extract DNA they hope will identify the remains of Leonardo da Vinci's model for Mona Lisa.

Geologist Antonio Moretti told reporters the remains in the Santissima Annunziata basilica had an inscribed stone indicating they belonged to the family of Lisa Gherardini's husband and sons. Many believe she posed for Leonardo.
Researchers will run tests to see if DNA from the bones can be linked to female bones previously found in Florence's Sant Orsola convent and believed to be those of Gherardini.
If the tests are positive, experts will reconstruct the woman's skull and compare it to the portrait.
Silvano Vinceti, head of Italy's cultural heritage committee, said the mystery of Mona Lisa's identity is about to be revealed.
"Thanks to this reconstruction we will be able to find the answer to a question that has been intriguing historians all over the world," he said.

This is great! If the DNA tests come back positive then I cant wait to see the reconstruction of the skull in comparison to the portrait. It's amazing the facial reconstructions they can do these days, it will be interesting to see.



Link

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


There are stories that just make me think why , what's the point ?
Is this really worth opening someones tomb for , do we really need to know this so badly that we need to disturb someones last resting place and expose them and it to the glare of the media

The painting of the Mona Lisa is as enigmatic as her smile why can't we just leave it that way .

reply to post by gortex


Going by that logic, we should leave every bone in the ground alone, huh? No one really needs to see what yada-yada hominid ancestor looked like, or what someone from dead culture XYZ looked like, right? Right? Or is there some kind of minimum time limit we should observe, and not disturb it until it turns blah-blah years old?

The whole point of archaeology and anthropology is to reconnect with the past, our past. To learn about it & the people that lived then. A culture group can tell us a lot, but sometimes we can connect even deeper with individuals if we know enough about them. I've never seen the Mona Lisa in person, and probably never will, but if they can conclusively link this woman's remains to the painting, then it would heighten my interest in that it's a definitive background I'd be interested in learning regarding her & her family in that time. Until then, I can wait until they're sure one way or the other, because I'd rather not attach the wrong woman to it if this one isn't her.
Good lord man, have you never looked at a painting's subject, recent or ancient, and wondered what their life story was?

reply to post by gortex


I suppose it's personal opinion. I mean I have always been fascinated by the Mona Lisa and Leonardo da Vinci, so to me its quite exciting.

I know I wouldnt mind my bones being dug up in the future. I think id be happy knowing that my remains were causing such a fuss lol, but again, that's just me.

reply to post by Nyiah

Going by that logic, we should leave every bone in the ground alone, huh? No one really needs to see what yada-yada hominid ancestor looked like, or what someone from dead culture XYZ looked like, right? Right?

Calm down you'll do yourself a mischief

Its about need to know , we dig up bodies as a result of excavations and in the quest to know how our ancestors lived to learn about our past , this is just opening a tomb out of curiosity to see if she's the girl in the picture .

Good lord man, have you never looked at a painting's subject, recent or ancient, and wondered what their life story was?

Yes but I've never felt the need to dig them up to find out for certain , I can live with life's little mysteries its the big ones that I want solved , there is no real point to this excavation other than curiosity .

Originally posted by Nyiah
reply to post by gortex

 

Going by that logic, we should leave every bone in the ground alone, huh? No one really needs to see what yada-yada hominid ancestor looked like, or what someone from dead culture XYZ looked like, right? Right? Or is there some kind of minimum time limit we should observe, and not disturb it until it turns blah-blah years old?

The whole point of archaeology and anthropology is to reconnect with the past, our past. To learn about it & the people that lived then. A culture group can tell us a lot, but sometimes we can connect even deeper with individuals if we know enough about them. I've never seen the Mona Lisa in person, and probably never will, but if they can conclusively link this woman's remains to the painting, then it would heighten my interest in that it's a definitive background I'd be interested in learning regarding her & her family in that time. Until then, I can wait until they're sure one way or the other, because I'd rather not attach the wrong woman to it if this one isn't her.
Good lord man, have you never looked at a painting's subject, recent or ancient, and wondered what their life story was?

edit on 8/10/2013 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)

What's the fascination about digging up ancient bones and artifacts anyway? I know I'll get booed for saying that but really, what's the obsession? Why are we so preoccupied with the past? I mean, a billion dollar mega structure will be put on hold indefinitely just because an ancient wall, a skull or a pot was discovered. Then bring in the archaeologists with their tiny little brooms to painfully brush away one speck of dirt at a time holding up an entire operation for years. I don't get it. Besides...the Mona Lisa is a self-portrait anyway.

I've read so many speculations about Mona Lisa's true identity throughout the years... I'm interested, and would love to find out.
At least it would be another mystery solved.
If digging up bones is the only way to solving this case, then what other choice do we have?



I believe this could truly help us solve a mystery, and I really don't think this is hurting anyone. That person's spirit has moved on to a better place a long time ago.

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
Gherardini.

Link

personally i think that Leonardo did the portrait Mona Lisa as a depiction of Mary Magdalene, you know the "favorite disciple" of Jesus


if it turns out to be a commissioned likeness/portrait of a Gheradini, that would be a mouthful ...
Mona Gheradini instead of Mona Lisa

reply to post by FlySolo

Besides...the Mona Lisa is a self-portrait anyway.

It may well be .


Time to dig Leonardo up

Or was it his supposed boyfriend Gian Giacomo Caprotti , the likeness is there .
jezebel.com...

I learned back in art class that a portrait tends to take on the features of the artist, because perhaps those are the features we are most familiar with. If all the students were drawing or painting the same model, you could tell who painted or drew them because of the resemblance to the artist.

I agree with Gortex. There is no real need to disturb the dead. Part of the beauty of the Mona Lisa is the mystery. Do we really need to know more, to appreciate her? Besides, I have more faith in Da Vinci's talent to capture the likeness and essence of his subject than all the reconstruction experts in the world.

It's art, not a crime scene. Just try to appreciate the beauty and mystique.

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

I am kind of on the feeling of why myself. If something was found by accident and total surprise than yeah I would be curious about discovering the dna. If they knew the tombs existed there all ready, and names where on the stone it would be like someone digging up a body from the local cemetery. It seems wrong. If they found the tombs by utter surprise like they did the pyramids, than it would be different. I do no not need to know who is in the painting. It doesn't affect my world at all. I would just leave it be sometimes mysteries are a good thing.