Leonardo da Vinci

Record yearc. 1470–1519

summaryPortraits, altarpieces, murals, and preparatory compositions constitute a bounded family of painted works. Collection materials discuss examples such as the Mona Lisa, the Virgin of the Rocks, and the Burlington House Cartoon; workshop, patron, sitter, materials, on-site team, and version attribution each have independent roles.

M rationaleBoth the National Gallery and the Met provide specific works, commissions, preparatory drawings, and limited surviving quantities, supporting the painted-work family in M6.3; do not replicate M based on fame, auction value, or per painting.

attribution rationaleLeonardo 0.48; Verrocchio 0.08; artistic antecedents 0.17; workshop team 0.12; commission delivery 0.05; institutions 0.04; unresolved 0.06.

overlap boundarySurviving and traceable final states of paintings, represented by the Mona Lisa, the Virgin of the Rocks, the Last Supper, and documented preparatory drawings, are counted as one cross-type work family; individual paintings, copies, restorations, reconstructions of lost works, and general painting methods are not separately counted as M.

Evidence gapsTechnical and attribution research on each work is required to distinguish the master, workshop, versions, unfinished states, and restoration layers.

Record yearc. 1489–1513

summaryThe anatomical illustrations center on direct observation, multi-angle drawing, and representation of mechanisms of motion. They are historical observational and graphic materials, not representing clinically validated treatment, diagnosis, or modern medical benefit; anatomical collaborators, cadaver sources, manuscript preservation, and later catalogers must all be retained.

M rationaleThe Met collection catalog explicitly identifies about 50 sheets, dated 1485 to 1515, based on personal dissection and showing the evolution of physiological understanding, and explains multi-view and joint/muscle motion representation; take M5.8; historical value derives from the illustrative method and surviving corpus, not upgraded by modern correctness or medical outcomes.

attribution rationaleLeonardo 0.41; anatomy and art prior development 0.23; cadaver/physician material chain unresolved 0.16; assistant compilation 0.07; institutions 0.06; other unresolved 0.07.

overlap boundaryApproximately 1485 to 1515, anatomical drawings and notes based on human observation, emphasizing multi-angle, layered, and joint/muscle motion illustrative methods; does not claim to constitute modern medicine, a completed anatomical treatise, or clinical efficacy.

Evidence gapsRequires page-by-page cross-checking of manuscripts with hospital/physician archives for observation dates, cadaver sources, collaborative work, and which conclusions were correct or perpetuated errors.

Record yearc. 1487–1515

summaryNotebooks such as Forster and Arundel juxtapose text, diagrams, and measurement questions, involving water flow, measurement, optics, and natural observation. Scattered pages and later compilation limit direct attribution by topic or date; notebook inquiry does not automatically become verified theorem or practical engineering.

M rationaleThe V&A and the British Library directly confirm the manuscript's date, subject, mirror writing, and unordered compilation nature; the Met explains drawing as a language of invention, exploration, and scientific illustration, taking M5.3. M counts manuscript methods and extant knowledge artifacts, not automatically equating sketches with verified results.

attribution rationaleLeonardo 0.40; prior knowledge 0.28; artisan and technical input 0.10; institutions 0.06; unresolved 0.16.

overlap boundaryThe graphic-textual working method in manuscripts such as Forster I and Codex Arundel concerning hydraulics, physical measurement, optics, plants, animals, water motion, and adjacent natural-technical observations; preparatory drawings for paintings, anatomical series, and specific unbuilt devices are excluded.

Evidence gapsCodicological and page-by-page technical history are needed to separate verified propositions from merely problematic sketches in hydraulics, optics, measurement, and natural observation.

Record yearc. 1487–1515

summaryEngineering and flying devices remain graphic-textual conceptual artifacts in notebooks. The National Gallery explicitly states that its helicopter-type design was never built, so this item does not claim deployed aircraft, military devices, modern aviation technology, or their subsequent benefits.

M rationaleThe museum explicitly records the concept's existence and that the flying design was never built, so this is taken only at the final state of a graphic-textual concept, M4.1, significantly lower than an actual engineering delivery anchor; this is not a discount due to age or fame.

attribution rationaleLeonardo 0.34; mechanical prior history 0.30; artisan commission input 0.12; institutions 0.06; unresolved 0.18.

overlap boundaryOnly count flight/rotorcraft, hydraulic, and mechanical device pictorial and textual concepts locatable in the notes as historical knowledge artifacts; National Gallery flight designs explicitly not built are not valued as inventions realized, modern aviation, weapons, or industrial effects.

Evidence gapsSpecific manuscript pages, commissions, and test records are required to distinguish original conceptions, transcriptions, models, partial implementations, and pure sketches.