alt.turin-shroud FAQ (part 1 of 3)
Frank Weaver
****************************
alt.turin-shroud FAQ V4.00
****************************
Table of Contents
New and revised sections are marked by a *
1. Introduction
1.1 Structure of this FAQ
1.2 Credits
1.3 Charter of alt.turin-shroud
2. About the Turin Shroud
2.1 What is the Turin Shroud?
2.2 What is the image?
2.3 Why is the Turin Shroud a subject of controversy?
3. History and Art of the Turin Shroud
3.1 What is the history of the Shroud?
3.2 Where was the shroud before 1357?
3.3 How does it fit into art history?
4. Science and the Turin Shroud
4.1 What is Sindonology?
4.2 When did the scientific study of the Shroud begin?
4.3 About the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)
4.3.1 When and why was STURP formed?
4.3.2 What did the STURP team conclude after the 1978 tests?
4.3.3 Who is Walter McCrone and what does his research say?
4.3.4 Who's right, STURP or McCrone?
4.4 Is there blood on the Shroud?
4.5 What other studies have been made?
4.6 Doesn't the carbon-14 dating prove the Shroud is a fake?
5. Concluding thoughts: Is there any middle ground between
authenticity and forgery?
6. Where can I learn more about the Shroud of Turin?
7. References
8. Revision history
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
1.1 Structure of this FAQ
The Shroud of Turin is a subject of considerable controversy between
its supporters and its detractors. Because alt.turin-shroud is a
locus of this controversy, I [FW] have tried to make this FAQ fairly
representative of both viewpoints. Each question, to the extent
possible, has two answers -- one each from a supporter of its
authenticity and a skeptic.
As of November 25, 2002, the original author of this FAQ, William
Meacham, has requested that his comments defending its authenticity
be removed. They have been replaced by selections from published
books, articles and research papers written by assorted advocates of
his position.
1.2 Credits
The PRO answers are quotations from the published writings of
well-respected pro-authenticity authors, lecturers and researchers.
The PRO sections have been chosen by FW because they summarize the
mainstream of pro-authenticity views on the question addressed and
because the authors are well-respected within the sindonological
community. Authors' names are given in brackets immediately after
the quotation. Detailed bibliographical information has been
relegated to the References section of the FAQ.
Frank Weaver <wea...@world.std.com>, an amateur critic of
Sindonology, wrote the ANTI answers especially for this FAQ.
His contributions are noted by the designation [FW].
1.3 Charter of alt.turin-shroud
This newsgroup was created on November 7, 1997 to provide an
open internet forum for discussion of all aspects of the Turin
Shroud -- scientific, art historical, historical, religious,
conservation-related, etc. It is unmoderated, but advertising,
binaries and off-topic posts are not welcome, in line with
Usenet practice. Single brief announcements of events or
services related to the Shroud, for example new organizations,
books, websites, lectures, tours, and activities, will however
be acceptable. [William Meacham, November 12, 1997]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 2 ABOUT THE TURIN SHROUD
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
2.1 What is the Turin Shroud?
PRO:
In Turin, Italy, there exists a 4.3 m (14-ft 3-in) linen cloth known
as the Shroud of Turin. This cloth contains visible discolorations
of the frontal and dorsal images of a human male form without obvious
side images. The image appears to be that of a crucifixion victim who
has been whipped, knifed in his right side, and physically abused.
These characteristics, reminiscent of what the Gospels describe
happened to Jesus, have led some to hypothesize that the man of the
Shroud is Jesus, while others have remained cautious, awaiting in
some cases a radiocarbon date of the Shroud. [John P. Jackson, Eric
J. Jumper, and William R. Ercoline]
ANTI:
The 'Shroud' of Turin is a piece of linen, approximately 14 ft by
1.3 ft in size, woven in a herringbone twill pattern. Since its
first appearance, it has been claimed to be the true burial cloth of
Jesus Christ containing a miraculously produced record of his
Resurrection (hereafter called 'authenticity'). There were many
other such alleged True Shrouds (from 12 to 40, sources differ), some
of which, like the Turin 'Shroud' bore allegedly miraculous images.
All have been debunked, including this one. [FW]
2.2 What is the image?
PRO:
The astonishing aspect of seeing the Shroud itself rather than a
photograph is discovering how pale and subtle the appears. The color
of the imprint can best be described as a pure sepia monochrome, and
the closer one tries to examine it, the more it melts away like mist.
... The main point is that, except when viewed from a distance, the
image is extremely difficult to distinguish. [Ian Wilson]
ANTI:
The shroud contains faint frontal and dorsal images of a man that
conforms to the conventional figure of Jesus Christ, laid out in
death in the same manner as He is frequently depicted in other
devotional images of the time. It also contains deep red 'blood'
flows from the Cruficixion stigmata and other injuries described in
the Gospels. Historical evidence indicates that the image was once a
good deal brighter than it now appears, so we are almost certainly
looking at some combination of a remnant of what the artist created
and incidental damage to the cloth over time. [FW]
2.3 Why is the Turin Shroud a subject of controversy?
PRO:
For more than four centuries, one of the most exalted and baffling
religious relics in history -- the purported burial shroud of Jesus
Christ -- has lain as an object of almost untouchable sanctity in the
northwest Italian city of Turin's Cathedral of St. John the Baptist.
It arrived there after at least two centuries of adoring veneration,
near destruction and bitter controversy in the royal houses of France
-- and one unverified theory says by way of the Fourth Crusade to
Constantinople in A.D. 1203. Even in the relic-worshipping Middle
Ages, it is easy to understand that controversy should surround this
object: the terrible liability of making a single item an article of
supreme religious faith and indeed ultimate evidence for the
existence and death of Jesus of Nazareth was so obvious, the
implications of fraud so awesome, that many ecclesiastics wanted no
part of the Shroud from the beginning. Some don't even now. [Samuel
Pellicori and Mark S. Evans]
ANTI:
The idea that the shroud was authentic largely, but not entirely,
faded away with the Enlightenment, as it did for the other True
Shrouds. It was revived in 1898, when photographs revealed that the
image apparently looks more natural in negative than in positive.
Since that time, a religious cult has grown up around the cloth which
maintains its authenticity (almost always insisting that it's origin
is miraculous, as well) despite total lack of support for their
assertions and copious evidence to the contrary. [FW]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 3 HISTORY AND ART OF THE TURIN SHROUD
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
3.1 What is the history of the Shroud?
PRO:
The shroud first became known around 1357 when it was exhibited in a
small wooden church in the sleepy provincial town of Lirey, a village
about one hundred miles southeast of Paris. The Shroud's owner,
Geoffrey de Charny, had been killed the year before by the English at
the Battle of Poitiers. Impoverished by her husband's death, his
widow, Jeanne de Vergy,hoped to attract pilgrims -- and their
monetary offerings -- by exhibiting Jesus' burial garment in the
local church. Crowds did gather -- but only for a time. Bishop Henri
de Poitiers, the local ordinary, quickly ordered the exhibition
stopped, apparently doubting that a French noble family of modest
means could have come into possession of the true Shroud.
Jeanne de Vergy and other members of the de Charny family never
explained how Geoffrey de Charny managed to come into possession of
so fabulous a relic. Indeed, the question remains unanswered to this
day (although, as we shall see, there is a plausible explanation).
When exhibition of the Shroud resumed twenty-five years later, Bishop
Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop Henri's successor, branded the Shroud a
forgery and insisted that Pope Clement VII stop the display. Only
later, when the Shroud came into possession of the powerful House of
Savoy, was it finally accepted as the true Shroud of Christ. But even
then, acceptance came slowly. The Roman Catholic Church, in fact, has
never claimed that the Shroud is genuine. Now, in the twentieth
century, some scientists accept the Shroud's authenticity, more
readily than medieval Christians did. [Kenneth E. Stevenson and Gary
Habermas]
ANTI:
The chief historical documents concerning the shroud were unearthed
by Father Ulysse Chevalier in 1905. It first appeared in the 1350's
in the possession of a minor French knight, Geoffroy de Charny, who
used it as a revenue source to support the village church he founded
at Lirey. According to Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, his predecessor
investigated, exposed the cloth as a fraud, and obtained a confession
from the forger. Geoffroy, his son, also named Geoffroy, and
granddaughter Marguerite continued to support themselves by shroud
exhibitions, despite the efforts of d'Arcis and prohibitions by both
their Pope and their King, for the next century. Records indicate
that the de Charny clan engaged in acts of fraud, deceit, subterfuge
and theft in regard to the shroud, but none of the clan ever denied
the accusations that the cloth was a fake. In 1452, Marguerite sold
the shroud to the duke of Savoy. It accompanied the House of Savoy
to Turin when they became rulers of Italy. In 1983, former King
Umberto II transferred ownership to the Archdiocese of Turin. [FW]
3.2 Where was the shroud before 1357?
PRO:
A point of argument against the Shroud of Turin being Jesus' actual
burial cloth is that it can be traced with certainty only from about
AD 1355. Before then, existence and provenance is much more uncertain.
According to some traditions, a disciple of Jesus brought from
Jerusalem to Edessa a cloth miraculously imprinted with the likeness
of Jesus. Shroud historian Ian Wilson speculates that this cloth was
the Shroud of Turin, and that it was hidden in a wall to be later
rediscovered during the 500s. In fact, a circa 593 account states that
a 544 siege of Edessa was repulsed by "the divinely wrought likeness
which human hands have not made" and which was discovered in the
throes of the city's distress. In 943, the 'cloth of Edessa' was
moved from Edessa to Constantinople. The year thereafter, this cloth
was described as bearing "the blood and water from his [Jesus'] very
side," and in a circa 1130 sermon borrowing from a 769 discussion,
the cloth of dessa was described as having "the glorious features of
[Jesus'] face, and the majestic form of his whole body ...
supernaturally transferred," indicating the presence of more than
simply a face. An official history of the cloth of Edessa
characterized in 945 the imprint as "a moist secretion without pigment
or the painter's art," and "due to sweat, not pigments," descriptions
that conceivably could have been the Shroud. The cloth of Edessa
disappeared around the time of the 1204 ransacking of Constantinople.
Assuming that the cloth of Edessa is identical with the Shroud of
Turin, the cloth of Edessa reappeared in circa 1355, and has been
known ever since as the Shroud of Turin. [David Ford]
ANTI:
Contrary to assertions by its devotees, there is no believable
history of the shroud before the 1350s. They rely on rather
tendentious arguments that the 'shroud' masqueraded as an entirely
different legendary relic, the so-called Image of Edessa. That legend
however, first appears in a document universally regarded by scholars
of early Christian literature as a sixth century forgery. Even then,
it simply embellishes on still earlier forgeries dating from the fourth
century.
Most remarkable, shroud devotees deny every single tangible detail of
the description of the cloth in the very legends they claim as
evidence. The original Image of Edessa is clearly described and
depicted as a small hand cloth, bearing the face only of Jesus, made
while he was alive and uninjured. No part of the descriptions
mentions the injuries or blood that are obvious on the shroud of
Turin. The usual tactic is to either pretend these discrepancies do
not exist or shift the discussion to some later example of the
ever-evolving Holy Image tradition that is temporarily more congenial.
[FW]
3.3 How does it fit into art history?
PRO:
The Shroud image does not have any style and for that reason it does
not fit into any period of art history. While here I do not wish to
discuss art history and its aspects, because the richness and
complexity of that subject would take up many pages, I must say,
however, there is no such painting which would not fit with absolute
precision into a particular era of art history and point out with
reasonable closeness the artist who created the painting.
There is no directionality and no lights focus on the Shroud, neither
are outlines in any way. These three elements exist on every painting
without exception. These involve laws of nature. The lack of all these
again proves the Turin Shroud cannot be a painting. [Isabel Piczek]
ANTI:
Contrary to assertions by its religious devotees, a number of art
historians have pointed to its similarity, in both style and subject,
to other 13th and 14th century devotional images. Stylistically,
they have linked it to the innovations of various Romanesque and
pre-Renaissance artists including Pietro Cavallini [1250-1330],
Cimabue [1240-1302], Giotto di Bondone [1267-1337], Duccio di
Buoninsegna [c.1255 - 1319], Simone Martini [1280-1344], and
Masaccio [1401-1428].
In theme, the shroud fits into the post 12th century focus on the
Passion and death of Jesus Christ, as revealed by the ubiquitous Man
of Sorrows imagery from 1200+, the realistic and hyper-realistic
crucifixes that began to appear around the same time, Passion Plays
(14th century onward) and the Stations of the Cross devotion (circa
1260). Prior to about 1200, Jesus was NEVER shown bloodied or
suffering, not even on those Holy Image relics that were supposedly
the shroud of Turin in disguise (see Sec. 3.2). In Byzantine art,
he was portrayed as a divine Judge or Pantocrator (Ruler of
Everything). The shroud of Turin appeared only after the
passion/suffering theme was well established in both art and
religious practice. [FW]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPtq2/6yjdWYzk1A5AQEvWAf+OZwOs9GNjFbrH90/CUpZDuX8pyS6Nh1O
esJD7dlAD8yU2o5+XWN16kVGWTENb+ZJa8QtBFH6CeIg1n0soHu24xeiIjrCzzeD
D1O1I5gdbR3B72OsS0OthJf+o36BxCMZp6WjnCMX2UKC5Ez/3+z9kPWQ6+Pr99h8
jZg/VXhuPxIXh9UPEN4dW5e+nGKARVLZAtbgyG8xMShQdOyAvijjB/+g3GXqmlDU
t1rlUCb8NU7X2/Z6Li2sXtxDvQEAmp9Ir9vtJfza6krfnu7nWKQ9g1Z1FXW5od51
UMvAuM12OEjGUpdhOQXoQuvHB90cNcTp/GveSIpnVmR2HQ39I4fnBQ==
=Jmfp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
4.5 What other studies have been made?
ANTI:
If 'anatomically correct' means there is no distortion so bad it
can't be rationalized away by a determined advocate, then the shroud
image can be said to be anatomically accurate. Even some of its
devotees admit that the legs are about 5 inches longer in front
than in back; that the figure is so tall one Sindonologist suggested
Jesus had a rare genetic disorder that produces gigantism; that the
arms are too long (must have been pulled from their sockets); the
fingers resemble Freddy Krueger on a bad day (optical distortion);
the thumbs are missing (reaction to the nails pulled them out of
sight); the bloody right footprint is in a physiologically untenable
position, and so on for other deviations from normal anatomy.
On the other hand, the observed elongation of the body, arms, legs
and fingers is typical of French Gothic figure art c. 1200-1400.
The missing thumbs are a fairly common convention in medieval art.
The apologia of advocates like deLage, Barbet and Vignon illustrate
the Sindonological dictum that the data must be rectified with
authenticity, or else!
Since 1978, one other significant scientific project has been
undertaken. In 1988, portions of the shroud were radiocarbon dated
by three laboratories. All three announced a date consistent with
medieval origin, with the combine conclusion being that the shroud
dates from 1260 - 1390 CE with 95% confidence.
In addition, Nicholas Allen of the Technical Institute in South Africa
has continued to conduct research, primarily into his own theory of
the creation of the shroud image.
In the mainstream scientific world, however, the shroud has been a
dead end since the C-14 results were announced. Sindonologists, of
course, continue to conduct research of a sort. It generally is
closer to apologetics and creative rationalization than scientific
work. [FW]
4.6 Doesn't the carbon-14 dating prove the Shroud is a fake?
PRO (a):
Divergence of the C-14 age from the historically dateable context is
clearly the best, perhaps the only, method of evaluating the effects
of contamination.
Undeniably, a "bullseye" result with mid-point at 20 or 1320 A.D.
would lend strong support to the proponents or opponents of
authenticity. But a result of 300 or 700 or 1000 AD would create more
controversy than it settled, especially with the necessary margin of
error at -t 300 years or more. As flax is extremely short-lived, minor
fluctuations in atmospheric C-14 levels may require that an
uncertainty of up to + 120 years (Farmer and Baxter 1972) or ~ 150
years (Bruns et al 1980) be added to the normal statistical errors
(+ 80 on a good sample). [William Meacham, 1986]
PRO (b):
No. A single sample was taken from an edge of the cloth in 1988
and analized by three C14 labs. The result they produced was
1260-1390 AD. This result was widely proclaimed to have proven
the Shroud to be a fake, or at least to be considerably later
than the 1st century A.D. and thus not the burial cloth of
Christ. However, C14 dating is not infallible, and the result
has been challenged on a number of grounds: contamination,
isotope exchange, poor sampling strategy, failure to follow the
protocol established by a conference of experts. It is
nonetheless true that the C14 date is the main (and very nearly
the only) evidence to come from the scientific examination of
the Shroud that strongly supports a forgery hypothesis. [William
Meacham, 1997]
ANTI:
Obviously, it is very important to diehard devotees that the C-14
dating be invalidated. To that end, the bulk of Sindonological
research since 1988 has been devoted to "anything but face value"
rationalizations of that result. These proposals range from
unsupported allegations of massive, previously undetected bacterial
contamination to invisible patches to such preposterous suggestions
that resurrection radiation and/or the fire of 1532 (aka isotope
exchange) magically redated the cloth. Some devotees go so far as
to take the kitchen sink approach, advancing several or all of these
mutually exclusive speculations at once, throwing in baseless
allegations of scientific impropriety into the bargain.
From the strictly scientific viewpoint, the C-14 dating is not
necessary. It's more like overkill. Contrary to the frequent
assertions of devotees, there was more than sufficient evidence that
the shroud is a medieval hoax before it was dated. The carbon
date, at 1325 +/- 65 years, hit the bullseye already established by
critics. Carbon dating corroborates the historical records (Sec. 3.1)
corroborate dating by artistic style and iconographic motif (Sec. 3.3)
corroborate the carbon dating. Conversely, there has never been a
shred of reliable evidence pointing to other than a medieval origin.
[FW]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 5 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there any middle ground between authenticity and forgery?
PRO:
But if you are a thinking person, ultimately you do have to decide in
your own mind whether you believe the Shroud to be just a mediaeval
fake -- in the words of the American writer John Walsh 'one of the
most ingenious, most unbelievable products of the human mind and hand
on record' or 'the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ
in existence', imprinted with a 2000-year-old photograph of him as he
lay in death. These are the two stark alternatives that the Shroud
presents, and although it was some thirty-five years ago that Walsh
penned those words they remain every bit as valid today.
And you can play around as much as you like with all the evidence
from chemistry, physics, history, archaelogy and so much more, the
testings for blood, for radioactive carbon, and so on. But the issue
comes down to what does that image on the photographic negative that
so perplexed its discoverer Secondo Pia just a century ago say to
your mind -- or even more pertinently, to your heart? Does it arouse
in your blood the feeling that here is the very man who, in some
still unimaginable way, broke the bounds of death as his blood-soaked
corpselay in a Jerusalem tomb 2000 years ago? Or does it leave you as
cold as his body, by all normal logic, ought to have been? [Ian
Wilson]
ANTI:
Expressing the possibility of forgery in hyperbolic terms is a
rhetorical tactic much loved by the pro-shroud contingent.
Contrary to their hyperbole, the evidence is not only overwhelmingly
in favor of medieval forgery, much of that evidence is very simple
stuff that requires only the application of common sense and clear
thinking. By contrast, supporting authenticity requires the building
of ever more baroque ad hoc rationalizations to rationalize the
problems created by the last round of rationalizations.
Some twenty years ago, Joe Nickell and Walter McCrone both
demonstrated incredibly simple and, in retrospect, obvious methods of
making a shroud. Two different methods, to be sure, but all the
rationalizations of Sindonologists amount to little more than blanket
denials of their achievements. The shroud artist need not have been
very clever at all.
Behind the facade of 'shroud science,' what is certain is that the
shroud's religious devotees need to believe in its authenticity for
reasons of their own that have nothing to do with the evidence,
science or logic. As a famous scientist (Theodosius Dobzhansky) once
said, "No evidence is powerful enough to force acceptance of a
conclusion that is emotionally distasteful." [FW]
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 6 WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
ANTI:
http://www.shroud.com is the largest site on the Web devoted to
a pro-authenticity view of the shroud. There are many other
credulous sites, e.g.:
http://www.shroud2000.com
http://www.shroud.it
http://dmi-www.mc.duke.edu/shroud/
http://www.shroudofturin.com/
Many fundamentalist and conservative Catholic websites also have
small shroud sections.
There are also many pro-authenticity books. Any of the ones written
by Ian Wilson provide a general overview while at least acknowledging
the existence of serious weaknesses in the pro-shroud argument that
need explaining. His most recent is *The Blood and the Shroud*
(New York: Simon and Schuster, 1998).
On the skeptical side, some Web sites are:
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptics/shroud/
http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html
http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud
http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/shroud/menu.htm
Skeptical books and articles are harder to get. There is no mass
market for popping balloons. Essential reading is *Inquest on the
Shroud of Turin* by Joe Nickell. Walter McCrone has also written a
book, *Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin*, that is a more
difficult read. Both are available from Prometheus Books
(http://www.prometheusbooks.com). For articles, try "Unraveling the
Shroud of Turin" by Stephen Schafersman, available at
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptics/shroud/as/, "The Shroud of Turin:
A Critical Appraisal" by Marvin Mueller (_Skeptical Inquirer_, Spring
1982) and "Debunking the Shroud of Turin: Made by Human Hands" by
Gary Vikan (_Biblical Archaeology Review_, Nov/Dec 1998).
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 7 REFERENCES
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Editor's Note: I have given full bibliographic references to material
in print in commercially available books, journals and magazines.
Much of the pro-authenticity research, however, is self-published and
privately published. I have reconstructed the publishing histories
of these items as accurately as I can.
[2.1] John P. Jackson, Eric J. Jumper, and William R. Ercoline;
"Correlation of the image intensity on the Turin Shroud with
the 3-D structure of a human body shape" _Applied Optics_
1984; 23: 2244 (July 15, 1984).
[2.2] Ian Wilson; *The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus
Christ?* (New York: Doubleday, 1978), p. 9.
[2.3] Samuel Pellicori with Mark S. Evans; "The Shroud of Turin
Through the Microscope," _Archaeology_, Jan/Feb 1981, p. 35.
[3.1] Kenneth E.Stevenson and Gary R. Habermas; *Verdict on the
Shroud*, (Wayne, PA: Banbury Books, 1981), pp. 16-17.
[3.2] David Ford; "The Shroud of Turin's 'Blood' Images: Blood or
Paint? A History of Science Inquiry," self-published,
December 2000. (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf)
[3.3] Isabel Piczek; "Is the Shroud a Painting?" self-published,
1995. (http://www.shroud.com/piczek.htm)
[4.2] Mark Antonacci; *The Resurrection of the Shroud* (New York:
M. Evans and Company, 2000), p. 4.
[4.3.1] Frank C. Tribbe; *Portrait of Jesus? The Illustrated Story of
the Shroud of Turin*, (New York: Stein and Day, 1983),
pp. 117-118, 125, 126.
[4.3.2] Lawrence A. Schwalbe and Ray N. Rogers; "Physics and Chemistry
of the Shroud of Turin." _Analytica Chimica Acta_ 1982; 135:
49. (http://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm is an extract)
[4.3.3] Mark Antonacci; *The Resurrection of the Shroud* (New York:
M. Evans and Company, 2000), pp. 47-48.
[4.3.4] Alan Whanger; "A Letter to Hershel Shanks, Editor of BAR,"
privately published response to "Debunking The Shroud: Made by
Human Hands" by Gary Vikan (_Biblical Archaeology Review_,
Nov./Dec. 1998). (http://www.shroud.com/vikan.htm#shanks)
[4.4] Thomas W. Case; *The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating
Fiasco: A Scientific Detective Story*, (Cincinnati: White
Horse Press, 1996) pp. 18-19.
[4.6a] William Meacham; "Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the
Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties." Proceedings of
the Symposium "Turin Shroud - Image of Christ?" Hong Kong,
March 1986. (http://www.shroud.com/meacham.htm)
[4.6b] William Meacham; "Alt.turin-shroud FAQ", Usenet posting,
first posted November 12, 1997.
[5] Ian Wilson; *The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the
World's Most Sacred Relic Is Real* (New York: Simon &
Schuster, 1998), p. 239.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 8 REVISION HISTORY
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
February 2, 2003 Version 4.00
Major rewrite. Proauthenticity quotations added to most
sections. "References" section added. Minor revisions to
ANTI portions of Sections 3.3, 4.3.2, 4.4, 4.6 and 5.
November 27, 2002 Version 3.00
All material written by William Meacham removed at author's
request
October 1 2002: Version 2.01
Rules for FAQ submission and frequency of posting added
August 25 2002: Version 2.0
Responsibility for FAQ taken over by Frank Weaver
New structure and format
Table of contents added
Existing sections reorganized
Skeptical comments added
Eight new subsections added
November 12, 1997 : First revision
author: William Meacham
Original FAQ written by William Meacham, November 12, 1997
Revived, reorganized and expanded by Frank Weaver, August 2002
Current contributors listed in Credits and References sections
Contributions compiled and maintained by Frank Weaver
Last revision: 2 February 2003
Frequency of posting: monthly
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPtsDIKyjdWYzk1A5AQGElQf+JH/9gCYFQUVrE7KsP4Gl+XkuAkjGibLh
h3de9gsIsao9tMqpYP8IVbKCf8VCf8hZSglnaxatYP27ve1dQHe1iC5icb8B2fWn
5SDBuAwawdQvSMiMCcP+yFNStSOypOVXsvk8o+5hCJ+ZyL/ny38APSvZ4NdjUqb8
tksppUG7UNtWq/JVOfCwhw6XKkc1dAWZm0nkiizSOeDTOa5Li9dZnB1aZE0Qu3wa
Yfu7mbVMTt5ALKF7+r6HCSix7NAhcubmIoi+UKQwoAEXTlw/G9Zb2Eh2K2TqNtaT
0TR8FzJ6wq5mX5lEE5EIBD30EE71C6/VWzkGKeUfGTJHK++nOmrJwA==
=t/A2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 4 SCIENCE AND THE TURIN SHROUD
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
4.1 What is Sindonology?
ANTI:
Sindonology, from the Greek word for shroud ('sindon') is a
pseudoscience devoted to proving the shroud authentic. It was
devised by the shroud's religious devotees to give an aura of
scientific legitimacy to their efforts.
Sindonology is not recognized as a discipline or specialty by any
scientific or academic body. There is no course of study, and
qualifications to be a Sindonologist consist basically of accepting
the authenticity of the shroud and declaring oneself a Shroud
researcher.
In common with other bogus 'sciences' like UFOlogy, astrology, and
'scientific' creationism, there is almost no interaction between
Sindonology and legitimate scholars, be they scientific, historical,
or art-historical. In particular, Sindonologists take no note of the
commonly accepted findings of mainstream scholars when these conflict
with the goal of proving the shroud authentic (see, e.g., the comments
on Christian literary history in Section 3.2).
Sindonologists maintain their own network of research institutes,
conferences, newsletters and mailing lists that mimic those of
mainstream scholarship but do not intersect with it. [FW]
4.2 When did the scientific study of the Shroud begin?
PRO:
It was near the turn of the twentieth century that scientists first
began to take an interest in the Shroud of Turin. This resulted from
the first photographs ever taken of the Shroud, by an Italian
photographer named Secondo Pia, in 1898. In 1900, Yves Delage, a
professor of anatomy at the Sorbonne and a director of the Museum of
Natural History showed his assistant, Paul Vignon, the Pia
photographs and encouraged him to begin an investigation of the
Shroud. ...
- From 1900 to 1902, Vignon and Delage, assisted by three other
scientists, undertook their investigation, conferring at every stage
and agreeing on their conclusions. Though the investigation didi not
have access to the Shroud itself, it yielded some startling results,
and Delage was emboldened to give a full-scale report to no less an
audience than the French Academy of science, the foremost scientific
body in the world at the time. ...
Among the findings, the scientists determined that the images were
those of a dead human male. They found that the images could not have
resulted from painting but involved direct and indirect contact
between the cloth and the body. The investigators went so far as to
identify the body as being that of the historical Jesus and to
declare the Shroud his burial garment. [Mark Antonacci]
ANTI:
With the exception of the historical research of Father Chevalier,
Shroud research was dominated by less than objective devotees from
1898 to 1973. These include various efforts by Paul Vignon and
Pierre Barbet to proclaim the image to be too anatomically accurate
to be artificial, along with rationalizations for discrepancies even
they could not ignore.
In 1973, Shroud research took a leap forward when the Turin
Commission, a hand-picked team that included an archeologist, art
historian, chemist, several forensic experts, radiologists and a
physicist, were invited by the Cardinal of Turin to examine the
shroud. They and their report are rarely mentioned by Sindonologists
because, with one exception, they all concluded that the cloth was a
forgery. [FW]
4.3 About the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)
4.3.1 When and why was STURP formed?
PRO:
In 1975, Drs. Jackson, Jumper and Ray N. Rogers (a physical chemist
at the Los Alamos Laboratory) met with Father Adam J. Otterbein
(president of the Holy Shroud Guild) at the Kirkland Air Force Base
to discuss their plans. Other scientists, many with space-probe
skills from NASA-related and nuclear science activities, became
interested, and an American conference of research on the Shroud was
planned for March 1977 and was ultimately held at Albuquerque. ...
About twenty scienitists were present at the Albuquerque Conference
in March 1977. In September, seven of them went to Turin with Fathers
Otterbein and Rinaldi, and scientific testing of the Shroud was
requested in connection with thec planned fall 1978 exposition of the
Shroud. In April 1978 the Turin authorities approved in principle the
testing that had been requested by the American scientists, to
immediately follow the public exposition in October. ...
In June 1978, at a meeting in Colorado Springs, detailed plans for
the Turin tests were made and the Shroud of Turin Rsearch Project
(STURP) was formally organized. [Frank C. Tribbe]
ANTI:
In about 1976 to 1977, two officers of the Holy Shroud Guild (a
Catholic organization devoted to worship of the shroud) named Eric
Jumper and John Jackson conceived of the idea of bringing their
particular specialties in physics and image analysis to bear on the
shroud. They founded a working group, later incorporated as STURP,
to plan this attack. Contrary to later representations by STURP
representatives, both their public statements at the time and the
testimony of observers at their early meetings confirm that the
purpose of STURP was always to prove that the shroud was authentic.
Jumper and Jackson recruited other scientists to participate, with a
strong emphasis on those who shared the founders' bias. [FW]
4.3.2 What did the STURP team conclude after the 1978 tests?
PRO:
The scientific concensus is that the image was produced by something
which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the
polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself.
Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical
and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be
obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or
physical methods known which can account for the totality of the
image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or
medical circumstances explain the image adequately.
Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what
produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human
form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist.
The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive
test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until
further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of
scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem
remains unsolved. [Lawrence A. Schwalbe and Ray N. Rogers]
ANTI:
There is no dispute about what STURP concluded. The critical
question is, does it matter? It certainly does to Shroud devotees.
STURP is the gold standard of pro-shroud research, the only people
ever to have pro-shroud papers published in legitimate scientific
journals.
But Harry Gove, who had associated with but not joined, STURP from
its first meeting, described their tests thus: " The Shroud had been
subjected to a number of scientific tests of dubious value carried out
in ill-conceived ways by scientists of dubious reputation."
A good chunk of the published STURP research is either trivial,
inconclusive, or of no relevance to provenance claims. Other
findings are easily compatible with, even supportive of, the forgery
hypothesis. A substantial number of the heftier STURP claims have
been called into serious question by skeptics as flagrant examples
of manipulating data to fit the desired conclusions (see Section 4.4
for an example).
In general, their actions and public statements of its leaders suggest
that STURP was a religious crusade masked by technology to give the
illusion of science. Items like the nondisclosure agreement STURP
members were required to sign, the leaders' own flagrant violation of
that agreement at every opportunity they got to give pro-authenticity
statements, and the expulsion of the one dissident who would not
tow the party line argue that, to the extent STURP was a scientific
enterprise, it was a pathological one. [FW]
4.3.3 Who is Walter McCrone and what does his research say?
PRO:
Recently, the most vocal advocate of the painting theory, and perhaps
the best known among modern Shroud skeptics, is microscopist Walter
McCrone. After examing fibril samples from the Shroud, McCrone
announced his opinion that an artist had painted the body image by
using an iron oxide (Fe2O3) pigment (called red iron earth pigment or
jeweler's rouge.) suspended in a gelatin binding medium. He further
asserted that mercuric sulfide pigment, usually called red vermilion,
was added to the blood mark areas. This or any other painting theory,
however, is not supported through the data gathered through STURP's
rigorous testing. As we will see in this chapter, McCrone's suspect
methods have hurt the cause of science -- and not just in the case of
the Shroud. In fact, the theory that any painting medium or technique
could be responsible for the extraordinary images contained on the
Shroud seems impossible. [Mark Antonacci]
ANTI:
Walter McCrone was a chemist, a forensics expert and the dean of
chemical microscopy. He had a lengthy background in microanalysis
and art authentication and the personal support of Father Peter
Rinaldi (aka "Mr Shroud") in joining STURP. He became STURP's
microanalyst and its only forensics expert -- until he announced the
results of his analyses. The contention that he never was a member
of STURP is later historical revisionism by Sindonologists upset over
those conclusions.
McCrone analyzed the sticky tapes STURP collected in Turin. From his
microscopical and chemical analyses and spectroscopic analyses
conducted by employees at his lab, McCrone Associates, he concluded
that the image contained iron ocher, vermilion and rose madder
pigments in a protein base McCrone believed to be tempera. He
presented evidence that these pigments were located only in the image
and blood areas and not on the 'clear' non-image areas, indicating
that the pigments were intentionally applied there. He also concluded
that there was no detectable blood on the shroud. The 'blood' flows
were entirely red paint.
McCrone has published five peer-reviewed papers on these conclusions,
a point regularly misrepresented by his detractors. Three of them
were in _The Microscope_ in 1980 and 1981. The others were in
Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst, 1987/88 and
Accounts of Chemical Research, 1990. [FW]
4.3.4 Who's right, STURP or McCrone?
PRO:
McCrone has publicly stated that he stakes his professional reputation
on the Shroud being a fake. This position scarcely encourages objective
research. His conclusions are largely based on his examination of
material obtained from the Shroud on Mylar sticky tapes by the STURP
group in 1978. There are, indeed, linen fibers with paint pigments on
them on these tapes, but it has apparently eluded McCrone that these
are fibers which translocated to the Shroud from the some fifty-five
medieval painted "true copies" which were laid by the artist directly
on top of the Shroud as a "brandum." These pigmented fibers have
nothing to do with the images on the Shroud other than their proximity
to some of the body images, which one would expect considering their
origin. In addition, our studies have shown that there are images over
most of the Shroud, not just those of the body. McCrone states that he
used standard forensic tests to check for blood, and he found none. The
standard tests he used are not adequate for testing this material.
Later extensive chemical and other tests by blood experts on the same
material show conclusively that it is human blood from a severely
traumatized individual. McCrone, and those who would believe him,
choose to ignore a veritable mountain of scientific evidence and data
published in peer-reviewed major journals. These are listed, and
often printed out, on the excellent Internet website: www.shroud.com.
[Alan Whanger]
ANTI:
That clearly depends on which side of the fence you're on, doesn't
it? The response of STURP leaders to McCrone's conclusions are
telling. According to McCrone's account, Jackson and Jumper
literally threatened him for his temerity in reaching conclusions
that did not support authenticity. They promised to sabotage any
attempt he made to get his reports published. As soon as the
nondisclosure agreement expired, McCrone published them anyway.
McCrone relates another incident, in 1982, in which he reports Jackson
and Ray Rogers used deceit to get his copy of the two matching sets
of sticky tapes away from him. The past 20 years have also seen
numerous unsupported assertions that he has been discredited and an
unbroken string of defamatory attacks on McCrone's character and
competence, which reportedly included death threats from some of the
less stable faithful.
The view from outside the Shroud universe is very different. I don't
make too much of the congratulatory letters McCrone solicited then
printed in his book *Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin*. On the
other hand, his work convinced Fr. David Sox, formerly vice-president
of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, that the cloth was a
forgery. Obituarists may have been too generous when they made it
appear as if he single-handedly debunked the legend. Perhaps the most
objective evaluation is that the American Chemical Society
specifically mentioned his Shroud of Turin research as one of the
signal achievements that earned him its medal in analytic chemistry
in 1998. Regardless what the diehards would like to think, McCrone
has NOT been discredited among his peers. [FW]
4.4 Is there blood on the Shroud?
PRO:
Heller and Adler published their findings in an article titled "A
Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," in the Canadian
Society for Forensic Science Journal, Vol 14, No. 3 (1981). For our
purposes it is important to take note of the exhaustive studies the
chemists performed to answer the question of whether or not the
"blood" on the Shroud was real blood. They summarized their results
in a list duplicated below. ... Now take a close look at the results
of the tests performed by Heller and Adler:
1. High Fe [iron] in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence
2. Indicative reflection spectra
3. Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra
4. Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence
5. Positive hemochromogen tests
6. Positive cyanmethemglobin tests
7. Positive detection of bile pigments
8. Positive demonstration of protein
9. Positive indication of albumin specifically
10. Protease tests, leaving no residues
11. Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls
12. Forensic judgment of the appearance of the various wounds and marks
[Thomas W. Case]
ANTI:
It is very important to Shroudies to believe that there is blood on
the shroud. Perhaps that is because the alternative, red pigments,
is unacceptable. Skeptics aver that it really does not matter for
authenticity arguments. Nevertheless, there is no good evidence
supporting the advocates' belief.
Two points are obvious anyone even without specialized training.
First, the 'blood' is too red. Old blood quickly fades to brown,
then black. Shroud 'blood' is universally described as a bright red
or carmine-red. Also, the blood flows are preposterously dramatic
and well-defined. Anyone who has so much as tried to stanch a cut
knows that blood, well, *bleeds* into the contact cloth, quickly
spreading into an ill-defined blotch. Shroud 'blood' flows keep
their shape so well that some Sindonologists have claimed to
calculate precisely what angle Jesus held his arms on the cross from
them. Then there is the 'blood' on the head, which sits on top of
the hair like plastic first-aid wounds, instead of soaking in and
matting the hair as it would if it were genuine.
The first chemical tests on the 'blood' were conducted by Turin
Commission member Dr. Giorgio Frache and his colleagues Eugenia
Rizatti and Emilio Mari. All are forensic serologists (blood
experts) at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Modena, Italy.
They conducted batteries of the standard forensic tests for blood,
all of which came out negative. Several other Turin Commission
members did light and electron microscopy that failed to find signs
of corpuscles or other cellular traces of blood.
Walter McCrone is also a qualified forensic investigator. He
conducted yet more diagnostic tests for blood on the STURP sticky
tapes, duplicating some of the work of Frache, Rizzati and Mari plus
adding some new tests. Other scientists at McCrone Associates
conducted spectroscopic tests, such as electron and X-ray
diffraction, capable of distinguishing the molecular strctures in
which elements are bound. They found that the XRD spectra for the
iron in the tapes was similar to what is expected of inorganic iron
(i.e., iron earth pigments) but very different from iron bound in
blood.
The claims to have 'proven' that the 'blood' is real blood rest
mainly on the work of Joseph Heller and Alan Adler. After McCrone
reported his results privately to STURP, he divided each of the tapes
in two. STURP's leaders turned over their portion to Heller and Adler
for reanalysis.
In truth, every one of the tests they claim to have performed is
poorly conceived, non-specific for blood, and riddled with possibilities
for false positives, After conducting a test for porphyrins, for
instance, Heller and Adler admit they conducted no followup tests to
determine if their porphyrin was hemoglobin or one of the many
hundreds of other chemicals that would give the same results,
including chlorophyll, a comtaminant in the plant-derived dye rose
madder. They presumptively decided that a finding of iron had to
indicate hemoglobin, despite spectroscopic tests indicating it was
inorganic. Despite the number of possible sources of protein,
including tempera paint binder, Heller and Adler would consider no
other possibility than blood. For test after test, Heller and Adler
failed to perform the necessary followup work to confirm that they
had really identified blood and not something else. As one
skeptical investigator showed, all of their results are consistent
with iron ochre and rose madder pigments in a tempera binder. Since
they knew that McCrone had already reported finding all three,
Heller's and Adler's failure to conduct tests that ruled out those
substances is inexcusable.
There are a few more bits of claimed evidence, but, in short,
shroud 'blood' has repeatedly failed every single specific diagnostic
for blood that was available at the time. It manages to pass only
poorly-conceived tests that do not necessarily identify blood, would
not be acceptable evidence in court, and were interpreted with
blatant uncorrected bias in order to find what Heller and Adler (and
STURP leadership) wanted to find. [FW]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPtsCmayjdWYzk1A5AQFPOwf9Eonb0tghuWzpvHnDo/HBynPkSFWgcX9O
yHbRDpqMWogFrHW/rjz+lwW54QostVo1a0CMRkksYxg4bYL7oHwjhR6cwtpDe4UQ
lftS73GfbRgIfRdhCTQeeXHHhC7ce3eltXf2qmHtZD2VjfDwZfzRoL0J0uvI28so
Rua52sz7hSOKmFuPSdRf+uUHSJMAjEL5hkqVkEX3SQXnCAa0Re4Wy5H2CbiYoXHM
nnBtzA9RQ++G8xfcxr4kYMqw5udJI/KX1L4LIenn70xTZMZUlram4X84xPCzPQgw
Yip/zD9DeHH5ctPxuVP5vdhF+EYAwOiiQohNsHK6Bo7mWmTDWIXLcA==
=JrH0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----