Shroud of Turin debate starts again

"On Monday, the [Institute of Physics in London] said: 'Lying behind the known image of the bearded man bearing the marks of crucifixion, the new image has striking three-dimensional quality and matches in form, size and position the known face.'"

This is turning out to be a seminal finding. It virtually eliminates various hoax hypotheses and some miraculous and naturalistic hypotheses as well. It leaves many very puzzled.

These links will take you to other information including a discussion of the carbon 14 dating discussed in the Chicago Sun-Times article.

There have been other threads on this topic as well. But this is the firm announcement of the back of the cloth image.

And your paraphrase was useful while some were wildly speculating as to why the carbon 14 testing might be wrong.

It still is useful.

But now, the carbon 14 results are DEAD. They have been proven inaccurate through faulty sampling. There is no doubt about it. It is over, proven wrong. It is time to get over it and move on.

It *really* doesn't help your case when you wildly overstate things like this and speak in absolute terms. Let's have a look at what you provide for supporting documentation, shall we?

See: http://shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm

Quotes from your source:

"Any change caused by the fire would likely be too trivial to be significant. And while a microbiotic growth found on some archeological artifacts may be present on the Shroud, it is questionable if there can be sufficient quantity of this newer material to alter the measurements enough to make a first century cloth seem medieval."
"The presence of Madder root and mordant suggests that the Shroud was mended in this way."
"It suggests that the tested samples were possibly much newer and it underscores that the chemical nature of the carbon 14 samples and the main part of the cloth are outstandingly different."

For a definative 38 page scientific paper see: http://shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf

Are you sure you want to declare that paper "definitive"? It clashes with some of your *other* claims about the shroud...

In any case, about the 14C testing it says:

"The combined evidence from chemistry, cotton content, technology, photography, and residual lignin proves that the material of the main part of the Shroud is significantly different from the radiocarbon sampling area. The validity of the radiocarbon sample must be questioned with regard to dating the production of the main part of the cloth. A rigorous application of Scientific Method would demand a confirmation of the date with a better selection of samples."

Your own sources say the same thing I do: While there is reason to *question* the applicability of the date of the sample to the date of the shroud as a whole, that's quite simply not the same thing as "it is over, proven wrong", or "is, in fact, inaccurate".

All that has been determined is that the area sampled for 14C dating is different in composition in several ways from the main body of the shroud. And while there are indications that this may be due to subsequent "patching", that can *not* be determined with any degree of certainty. For all we know any "patching" may have been done near the same time as the origination of the shroud itself, or it may simply be a part of the original shroud's production which underwent different treatment or flax from a different source, etc.

Also note that the presumed date of the post-fire patching of shroud, 1532, is *not* consistent with the measured 14C date of the sampled area (AD 1260-1390), so any attempt to write off the sampled area as merely a post-fire patch area has some real 'splaining to do. (And yes, I've seen the attempt to claim that the sample was "half patch and half original cloth", but that itself is inconsistent with the areas determined by Rogers and Arnoldi to be same/different as the main body of the shroud...)

I agree with Rogers and Arnoldi (your own source) when they say that there needs to be 14C dating of less anomalous portions of the shroud in order to settle the issue, but even so the fact remains that at least a portion of the shroud *has* been accurately dated to around 1300AD, and the possibility still remains that the remainder of it may match, regardless of differing composition and weave. Or it may not.

But the point is that in trying to declare the known dating of a portion of the shroud to be "DEAD", or "proven inaccurate", or "no doubt about it ... over, proven wrong", you are engaging in wishful, goal-driven conclusion-making, of the very sort that Rogers and Arnoldi rightly condemn:

"Goal-directed "theories" and pseudoscience have badly damaged the credibility of rigorous scientific studies on the Shroud of Turin. [...] I would like to urge persons tempted to call on "science" to prove their point to please use complete, rigorous science. Anything less is scientifically embarrassing and counterproductive to Shroud studies."

Shroudie, if they can type the blood, why can't they carbon date it?

It hasn't even been firmly determined that there *is* any blood on the shroud. Some tests appear to rule out the existence of actual blood, some (mostly by Heller and Adler) appear to indicate that there is blood -- but other researchers have had trouble reproducing Heller and Adler's tests even using the same methdologies.

PCR testing has amplified human DNA from the shroud (and the DNA seems to indicate an AB blood type), but there's no way to determine that the DNA traces were actually from any alleged blood on the shroud, since so many people have handled the shroud through the centuries that the source of the DNA could well have been anyone's fingerprints, hair, skin flakes, etc. which happen to have been on the surface of the shroud.

As with so many other studies of the shroud, the results are more muddled and much less conclusive than its proponents would like to admit.

re: In the ancient production of linen on vertical hand looms, warp threads, the up and down threads on the loom, were lubricated with starch to make it easier to weave the weft threads over and under the warp threads.)))

This is also done by hand-weavers to this day. It is done to keep the warp from stretching inconsistently. Warp stretching out of tension as you weave is a headache for the weaver.

re: Washing, even with rinsing in clear water, never removes everything and small residual amounts of material remain on the cloth. )))

Linen is a fiber that releases soil (starch) very easily, and it was (is) common to boil the fabric outright. I find it surprising that starch would survive so long without just deteriorating and crumbling away--but--this could also mean that the fabric was used right off the loom... which would mean it had no other use it its life than to be a shroud, or, work of art.

I have an interest in old textiles, though not this old, of course. It would be nice to see a few threads of the shroud. Spinning wheels came into common use about the time that this garment was said to have been "faked"-- thread spun in Bible times would have certainly been spun on a hand spindle. But I read no accounts of the thread. I'd also like to know if this garment is of whole cloth, or joined together by seams. That might be significant

re: Questions: Why so only for the face (as discussed in the press) and the hands (as Fanti also discovered)?)))

If one accepts it as authentic--could it be....that there were other strips of cloth used for the body, leaving the hands and face unwrapped, to be covered by this last fine piece of cloth?

One thing that goes unremarked is how extremely valuable fabric (a good freshly-woven "fine linen" would have been worth many week's wages of a laborer) was in Bible times--linen is labor-intensive to a degree unimaginable by modern experience.

To honor the body, the final shroud would have been taken directly off the loom (pure and unused) to drape the body.

'Lying behind the known image of the bearded man bearing the marks of crucifixion, the new image has striking three-dimensional quality and matches in form, size and position the known face.'

You claimed on another thread to have corresponded with Fanti, could you describe how he determined (or more importantly, *if* he determined) that there actually *is* an "image" on the reverse surface of the shroud?

This new article in the Sun-Times confirms what I surmised in the other thread: That Fanti did not examine the shroud himself but was only working from *photographs* made earlier of the shroud:

"The institute used photos from a restoration two years ago. However, enhancing did not uncover the full body image as on the front side."

Given that Fanti did not actually microscopically examine the reverse side of the shroud at all, he can't actually be sure that there *is* any discoloration (i.e. image) on that side.

Did he even consider the possibility that what he was seeing on the photographs might simply be a "visual bleedthrough" of the image on the front side of the cloth, since flax is semi-translucent?

Even in one of the sources you linked earlier in this therad, there is an example of a photograph of the reverse side of the shroud, in which the front-side image is partially visible due to light passing through the cloth, reflecting off the surface the shroud is lying (face-down) on, and returning back through the cloth to leave traces of the front-side image on the film. See Figure 3 in Rogers and Arnoldi. The caption reads, "the image is seen only as a result of background fluorescence". That is, the surface the shroud is lying on is itself glowing in the UV light and "projecting' the front-side image onto the back cloth in the photo. The same effect will occur when using bright ordinary light during photography.

On the same page you will find this passage:

"Several STURP members looked at the back surface of the Shroud, and there is no trace of an image on it."

Are you sure that Fanti actually found any image there at all? Or is he just seeing photographic "bleedthrough" of the front image?

You asked if it was possible that the image was but " light passing through the cloth"? That is an excellent question and I will attempt to get an answer for you. It may take a few days. GOOD QUESTION.

I do know that the photographs were technical scientific documenting photographs. And I do doubt that his work would have passed the muster of peer review without this having been considered carefully. And I do know that Fanti is a prominent scientist who would certainly have considered the question.

You mentioned the quote: "Several STURP members looked at the back surface of the Shroud, and there is no trace of an image on it."

That is an accurate quote. That was in 1978. The Holland cloth backing was attached and STURP was given permission to open a small side area of about three or four inches. They probed with a surgical light and could only see a few inches in to about the edge of where an image would be expected. There was no obvious image. And even with the backing cloth removed in 2002, the image was not obvious until photographed and then not clearly identifyable until enhanced.

One more point. The image is so superficial that when vibible or UV light is projected through the cloth the image does not shine through the translucent cellulose fiber. Keep in mind that the image is extraordinarily faint, superficial to a single fiber layer, and contained in a carbohydrate layer that is 180 to 600 nanometers thick (the wave length range of light).

But it is a good question. Keep tuned.

Shroudie

Actually, that is not quite true what you say.

There is real human blood. The bloodstains are real human blood, type AB. There is no question about that. Numerous scientists including Paul Heller, who was Professor of Internal Medicine and Medical Physics at Yale University and the Director of the New England Institute; Alan D. Adler, who was Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut University; Victor V. Tyron, Director of the Center for Advanced DNA Technology at the University of Texas Health Science Center and others conducted an entire repertoire of tests. Immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens prove it is real human blood beyond any doubt. Raymond Rogers and Anna Arnoldi of the Department of Molecular Sciences at the University of Milan concur.

Highly reputed forensic medicine experts concur. Fred Zugibe, Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology at Columbia University’s College of Physicians & Surgeons and once Chief Medical Examiner, Rockland County, New York; James Malcolm Cameron, Professor of Forensic Medicine at the London Hospital Medical School Professor James Malcolm Cameron and Robert Bucklin, Forensic Pathologist, once Head of the Forensic Medical Division of the Los Angeles Medical Examiner Office and Coroner of Las Vegas support the conclusion. They all conclude that the stains were formed by real human bleeding from real wounds on a real human body, in rigor mortis, that came into direct contact with the cloth. Many of the stains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of the clot and a clear yellowish halo of serum.

Shroudie

If I began with a conclusion and tried to defend it that would be goal directed science. Guilty! I actually began with the conclusion that the Shroud was fake. Guilty! In the end I changed my mind.

As for the carbon 14 dating. It is no longer definative. As results for proving the provenance of the Shroud, the tests are dead. To quote Rogers from private communications:

"The sample used for radiocarbon analysis (age determination) came
from an anomalous section of the Shroud's cloth. . . . Its chemical composition
is significantly different from the Shroud, as follows: 1) The
ultraviolet fluorescence of the sampling area is much less than the
surrounding cloth (proving a chemical difference). 2) There is much
less lignin left on the linen fibers (proving a different bleaching
method). 3) Yarn segments show a heavy, yellow-brown, water-soluble,
gum coating (probably gum Arabic) that is the vehicle for Madder root
dye and associated mordant(s) (probably hydrous aluminum oxide). 4)
SEM x-ray analyses of fibers from the area (Adler) showed up to 20
times the aluminum concentration of normal Shroud fibers. This is
almost certainly due to the mordant concentration in the area. 5)
There is appreciable cotton in the adjoining Raes sample, but there is
almost none in the main part of the Shroud. 6) The lignin in the
Raes area (presumably in the radiocarbon sample) gives a chemical test
for lignin: the Shroud fibers do not. 7) An end-to-end splice was
found in a yarn segment from the Raes sample: no similar features have
been observed in the Shroud.

"The combined evidence from chemistry, cotton content, technology,
photography, ultraviolet fluorescence, and residual lignin proves that
the material of the main part of the Shroud is significantly different
from the radiocarbon sampling area."

I personally would love to have new carbon 14 tests. I just don't think that it will happen in the foreseeable future. I have signed a researcher petition for new tests which is unlikely to have any effect.

The tests are DEAD.

The shroud fascinates, but I must preclude my own interest with the conviction that this garment is not the shroud of Jesus, though I'm happy and interested to listen and read the arguments. I do not believe that God would allow such a relic to exist--but that doesn't mean I'm not tantalyzed by the possibility.

re: It would have been very stiff if taken directly off the loom as the starch would have been still present.)))

It is still possible--a finished fabric with "sizing" would be easy to handle and use, if the user so chose. I can remember a time when all household items were heavily, heavily starched. You can see such starched items in the paintings of the Middle Ages and Renaissance--such a cloth is at almost every image of a feast, with starched fold-creases.

Starches are botanical, can attract insects (damage). Linen is a unique fiber in that it forms a poor bond to practically everything--including dyestuffs. That's what makes it an excellent bandaging material--hard to stain, easy to launder. Flax is a fiber that wicks moisture more efficiently than cotton--picture a fiber like a soda straw.

A coating of starch might act like a gesso to receive an image--it's plausible. Certainly, canvases are "sized" before painting.

You wouldn't happen to know if there are seams in this shroud?

I've read so many arguments about carbon-dating--and they are really kind of boring--this garment could be dated in other ways.

But so few facts as to the common-sense nature of this textile, only those speaking to the curiosity of the image. How many pieces are joined together? How wide are the pieces--(width of weft)-- Are there selvedges, or have these been removed? Have some expert spinners been given samples of the thread? Is the fiber itself of long, valuable part of the flax plant or the coarser tow? While there were hand-spinners in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, evidence that this thread was spun on a wheel would quickly rule against authenticity.

They need someone who knows old textiles in general, not just experts on antiquities with little interest or experience in the hand mfg of fabric. For instance, a home weaver of good experience could describe that hem stitching better than the PHd who claims to see similarities to a garment of Masada. There are only so many ways you can make a seam, and only so many ways to hem it. A ladies' sewing circle could add more facts, frankly.

First off, the fact that it is a joined fabric may speak against authenticity--there is a mystique to whole cloth. But that's only one small point.

I'm not aware of any ladies' sewing circles who have examined the Shroud; only textile experts. As for the thread (technically yarn), it is an handspun Z twist.

I'm not sure that I understand why a seam would argue against authenticity. Are we to say that seams on the Masada cloths challenge their authenticy? Masada did fall to the Romans and no one went their and planted cloths to full archeologists.

I do suspect that you think it should be a single piece of unseamed cloth for Jesus. There is nothing biblical to that. The cloth from the Syrian or Egyptian style looms preduced a fairly wide cloth. It seems from some sources that Jewish burial custom required a shroud that was one cubit wide. To make sure the cloth was the right width a very expensive, single seam was created (some of the cloth's width was removed) between the selvidges. We should not be tempted to say that Jesus was buried according to the custom of the Jews -- but not exactly. What was mystique in Jesus' day? I take John's Gospel very seriously.

I think you are somewhat unfair to Flurry-Lemberg. She was an expert weaver from childhood who gravitated to acadamia.

There is much other evidence that is not carbon 14 oriented. One is the lack of any vanillin on the Shroud. Medieval cloths have vanillin which disappears with age. For instance, wrappings for the Dead Sea scrolls have lost all vanillin. There is the fact that the thread (excuse me, yarn) was bleached in hanks rather than as was done in the medieval period in question by bleaching the whole cloth after the loom (the bleaching fields of this period are well documented). Archeological evidence and another burial shroud found in the Hinnon valley lend credence to authenticity as a 1st century burial cloth.

Shroudie

I have pointed this out several times. This shroud (in fact ALL fabrics prior to machine spinning and weaving) represents many man hours of labor in growing the flax, harvesting, spinning, retting, weaving, etc., all of which was hand labor. Until the industrial revolution (and even for many years afterwards), clothing and other cloth was a substantial part of any estate. The estate's linens and clothing was a primary topic in any Last Will and Testament.

I have never seen anyone mention exactly how long it would take a skilled weaver to produce this 14 foot long cloth (three over one twill) on a vertical hand loom. Perhaps you can shed some light on this topic.

Does the handloom require that the warp threads are mounted in their entire length or is there some mechanism that allows a smaller work area, with the rest of the thread stored on some kind of spindle? I assume that each weft thread has to be combed down onto the last weft thread with a hand comb of some kind. I've seen some pictures of Indian Handlooms. Do you have any photos of a handloom similar to the kind that might have been used in 1st Century Judea?

But I read no accounts of the thread. I'd also like to know if this garment is of whole cloth, or joined together by seams. That might be significant

From my study of the Shroud, there is only one "seam" on the Shroud as originally constituted. That "seam" for years was thought to attached the "side strip" to the main body of the Shroud. In 1978 X-Ray photography proved the "seam: to be merely a "pleat" with the Shroud linen folded over and carefully basted down. It is unknown when this was done. What is known is that the Shroud is one continuous piece of cloth.

X-Radiagraph of the "seam" connecting the "sidestrip" to the Shroud.
Photo borrowed from www.shroud.com

I have read that the yarn is hand spun with a "Z" twist. According to shroudie's ShroudStory website:

More significant is the fact that the yarn was bleached before the cloth was woven. This is not how linen was produced in Europe during the time in question. There and then, the entire linen was bleached after weaving. More ancient linen was manufactured as described by Pliny the Elder: individual hanks of yarn were bleached and dried before weaving. This produced batches of thread with slightly different off-white coloration. With lighting from behind, X-ray-transmission, ultraviolet light and contrast-enhanced photography we can see discrete bands of yarn with different visual characteristics (x-ray densities and corresponding color densities). Some areas show darker warp yarns and some show darker weft yarns. In places bands of darker or lighter color cross producing plaid effect. Archeologically speaking, the cloth of the Shroud was not produced when the carbon 14 testing determined that it was.

I hope this information helps.

Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, former head of textile department of the Abegg Foundation in Riggisberg, Switzerland, found stitching. According to PBS Flury-Lemberg "discovered a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment.

Shroudie, I think I have to disagree with this report.

At the Shroud of Turin symposium in Stockton last month, Dr. Alan Whanger told us that while working on the Shroud, Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg unstitched part of the "seam" attaching the "side strip" and proved that it was merely a "pleat." Part of his presentation showed slides of Flury-Lemberg's hands unstitching the pleat, spreading it to show that it is one contiguous piece of cloth with the body of the Shroud. The photos proved it was not really a "seam" but a carefully folded pleat.

Speculation was made as to the dating of the pleat itself - the stitching did not match the basting type stitching done in the repairs by the Nuns of Poor Clare or the patching of the patches done by the Princess Clotilde of Savoy when the new backing cloth was sewn on. One theory was that the pleat was added to add strength because the Shroud was held by that side when displayed. WHEN the pleat was added is unanswered... but it could have been done in Edessa by King Akbar or his descendents... or anytime after that... Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg has apparently equated the stitching to samples from Masada.

re: (((Posted by Swordmaker to Mamzelle .... I have never seen anyone mention exactly how long it would take a skilled weaver to produce this 14 foot long cloth (three over one twill) on a vertical hand loom. Perhaps you can shed some light on this topic. )))

I may have missed it, but how wide is the fabric?

That's quite a length of fabric (I didn't realize it was that long--). It would involve a substantial warping which would likely take a skilled weaver, working on what would look to modern weavers like a tapestry loom, a few days work. 1st cent weavers would be able to contrive a winding mechnism for the warp feed--but I'd put a small point in the "modern" side of the debate because it is so long Weaving itself, with a simple twill (makes a satiny "hand" and a nice drape), only a few days more. I'd say, rough ballpark, 3-4 weeks of concentrated effort by one weaver. Weaving does not take as much time as fiber prep and spinning--.

Flax , which goes through many stages of prep, takes many months of labor. You can spin animal hair right off the animal! Spinning that much linen thread--and I'd like to know thread count?--would take the work of many weeks.

Materials were more valuable than labor in this time--so the fiber was relatively expensive.

A single thread would tell whether it was the high-quality part of the flax plant (the long fiber) or the cheaper tow. You can spin long fiber much finer than tow.

Pleat? Pleats are sometimes made to repair/darn. Whole cloth is far more valuable, and significant, than seamed cloth. If you wanted to honor the dead, and if you had financial resources, you'd choose a beautiful, single length of pure white linen to drape the body. A rich man provided Jesus with the tomb--he might also have provided him with a fine garment. If the pleat is along a warp thread, that thread might have been pulled or damaged (like you pull yarn from a sweater) by accident, and someone made a repair. I might also call this a "tuck"...

Remember the garment that the Roman soldiers gambled over--"without seam"--this is accomplished with a process called double weave, where you can actually weave in two layers. A double-weave does leave a clue, if this happened to be a double-woven piece of cloth--you can't avoid some awkwardness in the fold. Double-weaving is also done by a weaver to make a narrow loom do the work of one twice as wide.

re(((More significant is the fact that the yarn was bleached before the cloth was woven. This is not how linen was produced in Europe during the time in question.)))

I dunno about this assertion--linen production was a household affair, not industrial, and the individual household would have bleached when it saw fit. Flax is bleached in the sun--I think the finished thread would also have been bleached (if I had spun yarn I wanted to be as white as possible, I would hang it out to sun), then also the finished fiber. White is a hard "color" to achieve. The sun will damage silk, wool and cotton--but linen is very strong.

Just from the photo, and going on very limited look--this appears hand-spun. That doesn't mean it's first-century, but that it was not spun on a wheel. That's at least a point in the favor of 1st-cent.

I've been thinking more about the tuck/pleat mentioned. Depending on how it looks, it could very well indicate an intent by a later sewer to make use of the fabric for some purpose--starting to make a shirt/chemise, for instance, and stopping for whatever reason.

Doubtful, Mamzelle. The pleat/tuck in question runs the entire 14 foot length of the shroud. The current theory is that it was added at a later date than its creation to strengthen or spread the force as the Shroud was displayed or carried. Early depictions of the Shroud being carried show it being carried by six Bishops, all holding it by the side with the "side strip" and sewn down "pleat".

Use the following link to examine the shroud in detail:/

Barrie Schworz's website Shroud.Com

It has some photographs of the full shroud and you can see the "side strip" plainly.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.