Saturday, March 14, 2015

Locations of the Shroud: Chambéry 1471 - Turin 1578: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones

Locations of the Shroud: Chambéry 1471 - Turin 1578

This is the seventh and final installment of the entry, "Locations of the Shroud: Chambéry 1471 - Turin 1578." It is a continuation of "Locations of the Shroud: Lirey c.1355 - Chambéry 1471." I am working through the topics in the entry, "Shroud of Turin, expanding on them.

[Index] [Previous: Locations: Lirey c.1355 to Chambéry 1478] [Next: Locations: Turin 1578 to the present.]

Introduction. This is the second of a three-part series of entries which will briefly trace the locations of the cloth today known as Shroud of Turin, from its first appearance in undisputed history (see previous) at Lirey, France in c.1355, to its current location since 1578 in St John the Baptist Cathedral, Turin, Italy. It is partly based on my 2012 post, "The Shroud's location."

Chambéry-Vercelli, Italy (1471-73). In 1471 began the enlargement of the Savoys private Royal Chapel at Chambéry, which later would become the Sainte Chapelle, a permanent home for the Shroud. In September that year the Shroud was transferred from Chambéry over the Alps to Vercelli, Italy (see

[Right (enlarge)"[1]: The ruins of a Savoy fortress-castle at Verrua, Italy, about 30 kms (19 miles) from Vercelli. Presumably the Shroud was kept here from September 1471 to July 1473.]

previous map). Duke Amadeus IX (1435-1472) died on 30 March 1472, and his eldest surviving son, six year-old Philibert I (1465-1482), became Duke of Savoy. Amadeus IX had refused to honour the agreement of his father Duke Louis I (1413–65), to pay the Lirey canons an annual rent as compensation for them losing the Shroud (see previous). So upon his death the Lirey canons in 1472 complained to King Louis XI (1423–83) about Amadeus IX's failure to honor his father's agreement, and they requested that the King reinstate the revenues to them. The king responded by sending letters to three of his bailiffs, presumably to seize the Shroud. It presumably was forewarning of this action which prompted dowager Duchess Yolande (1434-78), Louis XI's estranged sister, to move the Shroud out of Louis XI's jurisdiction over the Alps into Italy. But the Lirey canons were rebuffed by Louis XI, because in 1473 they approached Yolande, who was acting as regent for her now eight year-old son Duke Philibert I, claiming eight years of arrears of the income promised them by Louis I in 1464. But Yolande had been living with the Savoys as Amadeus IX's betrothed future wife in 1453 (see previous) when Louis I received the Shroud from Marguerite de Charny (c.1390-1460) and she would have known that the Shroud never was the property of the Lirey church, and so she also rebuffed them, ending their lucrative extortion racket (see previous)! In 1473, Pope Sixtus IV (1414–1484), who as Francesco della Rovere was one of Duke Louis I's Franciscan retinue, published his De sanguine Christi, in which he referred to the Shroud as:

"... the Shroud in which the body of Christ was wrapped when he was taken down from the cross. This is now preserved with great devotion by the Dukes of Savoy, and is coloured with the blood of Christ"[2].
Under the ownership of the House of Savoy, with their royal and papal connections, the Shroud had achieved a respectability that had been all but lost after its wrongful condemnation as a painted forgery by Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (c.1300-95) in 1389. Which in the providence of the Man on the Shroud (who is ruling over all - Acts 10:36; Rom 9:5; Eph 1:21-22; Php 2:9), saved His burial cloth, bearing His image and blood, from being seized, especially when Marguerite de Charny travelled around France with it for ~35 years from ~1418-53, on a mule!

Vercelli-Chambéry (1473-1475). On 2 July 1473 the Shroud began a return to Chambéry via a circuitous route involving stays of weeks

[Left (enlarge)[3]: The rear of the Palazzo Madama, Turin, which in the 14th century was a Savoy castle. Presumably the Shroud was kept here from ~2 July-5 October, 1473.]

and months at the nearby towns of Turin (1473), Ivrea (1473-75) and Moncalieri (1474).

[Right (enlarge)[4]: 14th century Savoy castle in Ivrea, Italy. Presumably the Shroud was here from ~5 October 1473-18 July 1474 and ~25 August 1474-5 October, 1475.]

[Left (enlarge)[5]: Savoy Castle of Moncalieri. The twin round towers were part of the 15th century castle where the Shroud was presumably kept between ~18 July-25 August 1474.]

The Shroud returned from Moncalieri to Ivrea on ~25 August 1474 and over a year later departed from there back to Chambéry on 5 October, 1475.

Chambéry (1474-1502). Yolande, wife of the late Duke Amadeus IX, died at Chambéry on 23 August 1478, leaving her 13 year-old son, Duke Philibert, I the sole ruler of Savoy. But 4 years later Philibert himself died in a hunting accident near Lyon on 22 Apr 1482, aged 16. Philibert was married to Bianca Sforza (1472-1510) but as she was then only 10(!) the marriage had not been consummated, and so she returned to Milan. Philibert was succeeded as Duke by his 14 year-old brother Charles I (1468-1490). In 1485 Charles I married Bianca (Blanche) de Montferrat (1472-1519). A miniature by Jean Colombe (c.1430-93) added to John Duke of Berry (1340–1416)'s Les Très Riches Heures, shows Charles and Bianca looking at a Man of Sorrows art work [right (enlarge)[6]] which depicts the dead Christ with the Shroud's distinctive wounds, bloodstains and crossed hands. The Shroud continued to be carried around with the Savoys in their journeys from castle to castle; for example, Susa - Avigliano - Rivoli (1477-8). Exhibitions of the Shroud were held at Savigliano (1488) and Vercelli (1494). Charles I and Bianca had two children, Yolande Louise (1487–1499) and Charles II (1489–96). In 1490 Duke Charles I died at the age of 23, believed to have been poisoned by Ludovico II, Marquess of Saluzzo (1438-1504), with whom he was at war. The Dukedom and the Shroud passed to Charles I's 7 month-old son, Charles II, with dowager Duchess Bianca acting as regent. But on 1496 Duke Charles II died aged 7. Since there were no surviving males from Amadeus IX's line, the Dukedom and the Shroud passed to Amadeus' 58 year-old brother, Philip II (1438-97). Philip was married to his second wife Claudine de Brosse of Brittany (1450–1513). But only a year later, in 1497, Philip II died and the Dukedom and the Shroud passed to his 17 year-old son Philibert II (1480-1504), from Philip II's first marriage to Margaret of Bourbon (1438–83). In 1501 Philibert II, at 21, married the widowed Margaret of Austria (1480–1530).

Chambéry (1502-32). On 11 June 1502, at the request of Duchess Margaret, the Shroud was to be no longer moved around with the Savoys during their travels, but was given a permanent home in the royal chapel at Chambéry. The Shroud was moved from Chambéry's Franciscan church to the

[Left (enlarge): The repaired Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry, as it is today[7], after it was all but destroyed by a fire in 1532 (see below).]

Royal Chapel which became the Sainte-Chapelle (Holy Chapel). The Shroud in its casket was deposited behind the high altar, in a cavity in the wall, and secured by an iron grille with four locks,

[Right (enlarge): The cavity in the wall of the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry[8], where the Shroud was held from 1502-32.]

each opened by a separate key, two of which were held by the Duke. A public exhibition of the Shroud was held on Good Friday, 1503 in the market place at Bourg-en-Bresse, arranged by Margaret of Austria for her brother, Philip I of Castile (1478–1506). On 10 September 1504, Duke Philibert II died aged 24, from drinking too much iced wine after hunting, leaving Margaret of Austria twice-widowed and childless at 22. He was succeeded as Duke by his 18 year-old half-brother Charles III (1486-1553), from Philip II's second marriage to Claudine de Brosse. Dowager Duchess Margaret relinquished custody of the Shroud in 1505 to the new Duke's mother, the pious dowager duchess Claudine, who was also devoted to the Shroud and temporarily kept it with her in her castle at Billiat, near Nantua, France. The copy of the Shroud in St. Gommaire church, Lierre, Belgium [left (enlarge)[9]], attributed to Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528) and dated 1516, is probably Margaret of Austria's copy, mentioned in her 1507 inventory, "The picture of the Holy Shroud of Our Lord made on cloth."[10] In 1506 Pope Julius II (1443–1513) formally approved the name "Sainte-Chapelle of the Holy Shroud," after the chapel of the same name in Paris which St King Louis IX (1214–70) built to house the Crown of Thorns. The Pope also declares the 4th May the annual Feast of the Holy Shroud. Three years later in 1509 the Shroud was installed in a new silver casket which had been commissioned by Margaret of Austria, now regent of the Netherlands (see next on the fire of 1532). Charles' mother, dowager duchess Claudine de Brosse died at Chambéry in 1513 and was buried behind the high altar of the Sainte Chapelle, facing the Shroud's casket. Public exhibitions of the Shroud were held on the balcony of the Sainte Chapelle, probably at least every year on the 4th of May until 1533 (see next), as depicted retrospectively by Carlo Malliano in his "Ostension of the Holy Shroud" (1579) [right (enlarge)][11]. In 1516 King Francis I of France (1494–1547), a son of Duke Philip II's daughter Louise of Savoy (1476–1531), came from Lyon to Chambéry to venerate the Shroud. In 1521 Charles III married Beatrice of Portugal (1504-1538), a daughter of Spain's King Manuel I (1469–1521) and Queen Maria of Aragon (1482–1517). They had nine children, one of whom, Emmanuel Philibert (1528-80), would become Duke. Margaret of Austria died in Belgium in 1530, mercifully having been spared from what was to happen only two years later (see next).

Chambéry (1532)-Piedmont (1535). On 4 December 1532 a fire nearly destroyed the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry. Because the Shroud was behind an iron grille, secured by four locks with separate keys, there was no time to obtain them all to unlock the grille. So a local blacksmith, Guillaume Pussod, was called and with the help of the chapel's canons, at great risk to their lives, he prised open the grille and removed the casket from the burning chapel. But by that time the casket had begun to melt and a drop of molten silver had burned through a corner of the Shroud which was folded in 48 layers. The inside of the casket was doused with buckets of water and the fire extinguished. The casket was then taken into the nearby Treasury and when the Shroud was extracted it was found that miraculously the burn marks had paralleled the image (see below) and apart from part of the shoulders and upper arms, the image was not affected. The Shroud was not exhibited on 4th May 1533, seemingly confirming rumours that it had been totally destroyed. In April 1534 the Shroud was carried in a procession, including Duke Charles III, the local cardinal Cardinal Louis de Gorrevod (c.1473-1535), two bishops, an ecclesiastical notary and many other clergy, to Chambéry's convent of the Poor Clare nuns (founded by Duchess Yolande in 1471). After the Shroud had been laid out on a table, to counter the above rumours, Cardinal Gorrevod, invited those present to testify that the cloth before them was the same as the one they knew before the fire. After three bishops and ten noblemen did so testify, the Cardinal himself testified:

"It is the same sheet as we ourselves before the fire have many times held in our hands, seen, touched and shown to the people"[12] (my emphasis).

The Cardinal's words indicate that he had been one of the clerics who had held the Shroud at its Chambéry exhibitions (see above) and that there had been many such exhibitions, the records of which have not survived. The Poor Clare nuns then sewed a Holland cloth backing on to the Shroud and covered the unsightly burn holes with triangular linen patches, sewed into the backing cloth. An insightful report by Abesse Louise de Vargin, who had unparalleled access to the Shroud, is online. The repairs were completed on 2 May, just in time for the Shroud's annual exhibition on 4th May 1454.

[Left (enlarge)[13]: The Shroud, as it was before the 2002 restoration, showing the triangular burn patches sewn on by Chambéry's Poor Clare nuns in 1534. Compare it with the post-2002 restoration.]

In late 1535 Francesco II Sforza (1495–1535), the Duke of Milan, died with no heir. This sparked a fresh outbreak of the Italian Wars between France's King Francis I and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (1500–1558). The latter took charge of the Duchy of Milan, and announced that his son, King Philip II of Spain (1527–98), was the new Duke of Milan. At this, Francis I invaded Italy through Savoy, in March 1536. Savoy was aligned with Charles V and so it passed into French control. Charles III and his family, seeing what was coming, had already left Chambéry in late 1535, taking the Shroud with them over the Alps into Piedmont, Italy.

Piedmont (1535)-Chambéry (1561). The Shroud was taken by Duke Charles III to Piedmont, Italy, passing through the Lanzo valley. On 4 May 1535, the Feast Day of the Holy Shroud, the Shroud was exhibited in Turin, possibly at

[Right (enlarge): Extract from Ian Wilson's "Travels of the Shroud" map[14], showing some of the locations the Shroud (1535-61).]

Turin's Castle of Rivoli, a Savoy castle on the

[Left (enlarge)[15]: The Savoy Castle of Rivoli, on the outskirts of Turin, where the Shroud was possibly exhibited on 4 May 1535 and probably kept between then and the French capture of Turin a year later.]

outskirts of Turin, where the future Duke Charles Emmanuel (1562-1630) was later born. The French Army captured Turin in April 1536, but it failed to take Milan. The next record of the Shroud is just over a year later, when it was exhibited on 7 May 1536, at Milan, now safe in Charles V's territory. However, because of the ongoing threat of a French invasion of Milan, in 1537 the Shroud was taken to Vercelli. Then on Good Friday 1537 the Shroud was exhibited further south at Nice. Charles III's wife, Duchess Beatrice died in January 1538 in Nice. And it was in Nice, in June 1538, that the Truce of Nice was signed by Charles V and Francis I, temporarily ending the war, but leaving Turin in French hands. In 1541 the Shroud returned to Vercelli where it will stay for the next twenty years, in the treasury of St. Eusebius Cathedral. In 1542 Francis I, allied with the Muslim Ottoman Empire, declared war on Charles V's Holy Roman Empire. In August 1543 a Franco-Ottoman fleet captured the city of Nice. For Christian and Islamic troops to jointly attack a Christian town was regarded as shocking. Francis I died in 1547 and was succeeded to the throne by his son, King Henry II of France (1519-59), who continued his father's war. The future Duke Emmanuel Philibert served in Charles V's army in the war against France, and distinguished himself by capturing the northern France town of Hesdin in July 1553. In August 1553 Charles III died in Vercelli and his eldest surviving son Emmanuel Philibert succeeded him as Duke. In November 1553 the French sacked Vercelli but the Shroud was hidden in the house of Antoine Claude Costa, one of the canons. Emperor Charles V abdicated the Western part of his Empire in 1556 and gave it to his son Philip II, who continued his father's war with France. Duke Emmanuel Philibert personally led an invasion of northern France and decisively defeated the French at Battle of St. Quentin in August 1557. This important victory secured for the Duke a place at the conference table when the terms of peace were deliberated. In April 1559 Henry II of France and Philip II of Spain signed the Treaty of Chateau-Cambrésis which ended the 60 year-long Italian Wars. Under its terms, amongst others, France restored Piedmont and Savoy to the Duke of Savoy, and Duke Emmanuel Philibert was to marry Marguerite of Valois (1523–74), the sister of Henry II, in July 1559.

[Right (enlarge)[16]: Miniature by Christophe Duch (1559), in the prayer-book of Duchess Marguerite, presumably a wedding present, depicting a private exhibition of the Shroud, probably in the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry, before the 1532 fire.]

But just before the wedding, Henry sustained a fatal injury in a jousting tournament. Henry insisted that the wedding go ahead and and died a day after it. In 1560 the Shroud was exhibited from a balcony in Vercelli castle, and then after 25 years of exile of the Savoys from their own lands, the Shroud returned to Chambéry in 1561.

Chambéry (1561)-Turin (1578). On 3 June 1561 the Shroud was returned to Chambéry, and deposited in the Franciscan convent. The next day Duke Emmanuel Philibert led a procession accompanied by trumpeters and torches, to the now restored Sainte Chapelle. On 15 August the first exposition of Shroud in a quarter of a century was held in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry's high altar. On 17 August, because of the huge crowds and the confined space in, and in front of, the Sainte Chapelle, the Shroud was exhibited from the walls of Chambéry and also above the piazza of the castle. But the days of the Shroud in

[Above (enlarge)[17]: Simulated exhibition of the Shroud (white rectangle) from a temporary scaffolding platform outside the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry's apse window[18], overlooking the piazza of Chambéry Castle, where the Shroud was presumably exhibited on 17 August 1561.]

Chambéry were numbered. Following the Treaty of Chateau-Cambrés, Chambéry was no longer suitable for the capital of the dukes of Savoy. Moreover, there still was the likelihood of further French aggression and as an experienced military man, the Duke knew that Chambéry was indefensible. In 1562 Charles Emmanuel I (1562-1630), the future Duke of Savoy, and the only child of the 38 year-old Marguerite and the 34 year-old Emmanuel Philibert, was born. But significantly he was born in the Castle of Rivoli, Piedmont, not in Chambéry. In 1566 there was a private exposition of the Shroud in the Sainte-Chapelle for the new duchess of Savoy from Nemours, the important and influential Anna d'Este (1531-1607), who had married that year Jacques de Savoie, Duke of Nemours (1531-85), a descendant of both Duke Louis I's sister Agnes de Savoie (1445-1509) and Louis' brother Duke Philip II. The Shroud was recorded as being kept in an iron box as the silver casket had been destroyed in the 1532 fire. Duke Emmanuel-Philibert saw Turin as the logical center of his dominions but needed an excuse to bring the Shroud there. In 1578 that excuse came in the form of an announcement by the saintly Cardinal Charles Borromeo (1538–1584), the Archbishop of Milan, that he was intending to make a pilgrimage on foot to Chambéry to revere the Shroud, because of a vow he had made during a plague that had afflicted Milan. Duke Emmanuel Philibert volunteered to have the Shroud brought from Chambéry to Turin, ostensibly to save the relatively young (~40 years old) but sickly Borromeo the rigors of the journey over the Alps to reach Chambéry. On 14 September 1578, the Shroud arrived in Turin, never to return to Chambéry again.

To be continued in the first installment of the entry, "Locations of the Shroud: Turin 1578 - the Present.

1. "Rocca di Verrua," Wikipedia, 22 November 2014. Translated from Italian by Google. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1994b, "A Chronology of the Shroud 1452-1509," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 38, August/September, pp.20-25, p.20. [return]
3. "Palazzo Madama in Turin," Aree Protette del Po e della Collina Torinese, 2015. [return]
4. "Castello di Ivrea," Turismo Torino e Provincia, 2015. [return]
5. "Castle of Moncalieri," Wikipedia, 11 March 2015. Photo by Marrabbio2, February 2007. [return]
6. "Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry," Wikipedia, 6 February 2015. [return]
7. "File:Sainte-Chapelle (Chambéry).jpg," Wikipedia, 1 June 2013. [return]
8. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Neame, A., transl., Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.19. [return]
9. Moretto, 1999, p.18. [return]
10. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.286. [return]
11. "Books," Geocities, October, 2009. [return]
12. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.253-254. [return]
13. "Shroud of Turin," Wikipedia, 21 March 2015. [return]
14. Wilson, I. 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Gollancz: London, inside cover. [return]
15. "Rivoli, Piedmont," Wikipedia, 1 May 2014. [return]
16. Powell, A.K, 2012, "Depositions: Scenes from the Late Medieval Church and the Modern Museum," Zone Books/MIT. [return]
17. Chambéry Palace piazza, La Savoie, terre d'accueil de la Fédération Française de Gymnastique, [return]
18. Scott, J.B., 2003, "Architecture for the Shroud: Relic and Ritual in Turin," University of Chicago Press: Chicago & London, p.50. [return]

• Crispino, D.C., 1982, "The Report of the Poor Clare Nuns," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 2, March, pp.19-28, p.20.
• Crispino, D.C., 1983, "Louis I, Duke of Savoy," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 7, June, pp.7-14, pp.8-9, p.13.
• Crispino, D.C., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, #28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, pp.38-39.
• de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.16.
• Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.16-17.
• Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, pp.104-105.
• Jones, S.E., 2015, "de Charny Family Tree" and "Savoy Family Tree," (members only).
• Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.163.
• Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, pp.66-68.
• Scott, 2003, pp.47-48, 365 n.79.
• Van Haelst, R., 1986, "The Lier Shroud: A Problem in Attribution," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 20, September, pp.7-24.
• Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, pp.53-54.
• Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.217-220, 262-263.
• Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.70.
• Wilson, I., 1994a, "A New Finding - A Hitherto Unknown Shroud Image From 1486," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 38, August/September, pp.16-19, p.16.
• Wilson, 1994b, pp.19-25.
• Wilson, I., 1996a, "News from France: CIELT to hold Pre-Exposition International Shroud Symposium in Nice, 11-14 May 1997," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 43, June/July.
• Wilson, I., 1996b, "A Calendar of the Shroud for the years 1509-1694," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 44, November/December.
• Wilson, 1998, pp.64-66, 116, 282-286.
• Wilson, 2010, pp.242-257.

Created: 14 March, 2015. Updated: 28 March, 2015.

Thursday, March 12, 2015

"C": Turin Shroud Dictionary

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]


This is page "C" of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. For more information about this dictionary see the "Main index A-Z" and page "A.".

[Index] [Previous: "B"] [Next: "D"]

calcium carbonate (see limestone)
camera obscura
capillary action
carbon-14 dating (see radiocarbon dating)

[Right: Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (see below) depicted being crowned by Christ[2].]

Carter, Giles
catacombs of Rome
Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, Turin
Cesalpino, Andrea
Charny (see de Charny)
chemical tests
Chevalier, Ulysse
chin band
Christ (see Jesus Christ)
Christ Pantocrator
Clement VII, Pope
cloth-collapse theory
Code of Jewish Law
coin images
Constantine I

Constantine VII, Porphyrogenitus (905–959). Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII received the Shroud (as the Image of Edessa / Mandylion "four-doubled" - tetradiplon - with only the face one-eighth panel visible), at Constantinople's Golden Gate on 8 August 944, as dictated in his eyewitness testimony, "Narration about the Edessan image," on 16 August 944. In it Constantine described the Edessa Mandylion as a "moist secretion not made with, artists' paints," which is a precise description of the Shroud. In the 10th century icon that Constantine commissioned, which is preserved at St. Catherine's monastery Sinai, depicting King Abgar V of Edessa (4BC–AD50) receiving the Mandylion from the disciple Thaddeus (see "Abgar V"), it is Constantine VII's face on Abgar's body. Constantine instituted the date of the Image of Edessa's official arrival in Constantinople, 16 August 944, as a permanent annual feast day in the Eastern Orthodox Church calendar, and it continues to be observed down to the present, despite it losing the Mandylion over 800 years ago in the Fourth Crusade's Sack of Constantinople in 1204! A gold solidus coin of Constantine VII struck in 945, has many points of congruence with the Shroud face. In 958, a year before he died, Constantine sent a letter of encouragement to his troops, stating that he is sending them holy water consecrated by contact with relics of the Passion of Christ held in Constantinople's Pharos Chapel, including the theophoron sindonos, the "God-worn linen sheet." This, together with the other evidence above, can only be the Shroud, over 300 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in 1988.

Coon, Carleton S.
coronal discharge
Craig, Emily A.
crown of thorns
Crusade, Fourth
Currer-Briggs, Noel

1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "blood," not the whole page "B"), provided a link and/or reference is provided back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return]
2. "Byzantine literature," Wikipedia, 25 January 2014. [return]

Created: 12 March, 2015. Updated: 12 March, 2015.

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

"B": Turin Shroud Dictionary

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]


This is page "B" of my Turin Shroud Dictionary. See the "Main index A-Z" and page "A" for more information about this dictionary.

[Index] [Previous: "A"] [Next: "C"]

[Above: A photomicrograph of a blood area on the Shroud[2]. See "blood" below.]

Ballestrero, Anastasio
Barbet, Pierre
Baruch, Uri
bioplastic coating
Blachernae, church

blood. The bloodstains on the Shroud are real, human blood. The bloodflows are anatomically perfect and preserve the distinction between arterial and venous blood, which was discovered in 1593 by Andrea Cesalpino (1519–1603). In ultraviolet light each blood clot can be seen to have a surrounding serum halo, due to syneresis, the retraction of the blood into the centre of clot as it dries, which would be unknown to a medieval forger and impossible to forge. There is no image under the blood, which means that the blood was on the cloth before the image. This is consistent with Jesus' bloody dead body having been laid on the Shroud and then the image having been formed by His resurrection days later. This alone refutes all forgery theories, since it would be impossible for a forger to apply blood first and then forge the Man's image around the blood, and in fact all forgery theories simply ignore this fact and propose that the image was on the cloth first and then the blood was applied to it. The blood clots on the cloth are intact, which could only occur if the cloth separated from the body without smearing or tearing the clots, which is impossible, unless the body became "mechanically transparent," as in the resurrection of Jesus.

body images
Braulio, St.
British Society for the Turin Shroud
Bucklin, Robert
Bulst, Werner
burial cloths
Byzantine icons

1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "blood," not the whole page "B"), provided a link and/or reference is provided back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return]
2. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.75. [return]

Created: 10 March, 2015. Updated: 12 March, 2015.

Thursday, March 5, 2015

My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker #10: Summary (6)

Copyright ©, Stephen E. Jones[1]

Introduction. This is part #10, Summary (6), of my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker. See the previous parts #10(1), #10(2), #10(3), #10(4) and #10(5). Other previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, part #3, part #4, part #5, part #6, part #7, part #8 and part #9, which posts this part #10 will summarise. It is my emphases below unless otherwise indicated.

[Right (enlarge): Rev. H. David Sox's book, "The Shroud Unmasked," states in its Introduction that it was written by "August 1988"[2], and the London Sunday Times had a copy of it by 18 September 1988[3], more than two weeks before the official announce- ment of the carbon dating result[4] on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud's carbon date was "1260-1390!"[5]. In it Sox surprisingly (to put it mildly) quotes "Timothy Linick" (see below), and while Sox cites no date of the Shroud in it, it is clear that he knew the result of Arizona's first carbon dating of the Shroud was "1350"[6] up to two months before the official announcement[7].]

6. EVIDENCE THAT TIMOTHY W. LINICK WAS THE LEAKER OF ARIZONA'S FIRST "1350 AD" DATE. [ part #6] As part of my evidence that Arizona radiocarbon laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-4 June 1989)[8] was allegedly the primary hacker, who: 1) allegedly wrote and installed on Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory's AMS computer a program which ensured that the Shroud of Turin samples' actual radiocarbon dates would be replaced by dates which, when calibrated, clustered around 1325; and 2) allegedly passed that program on to the KGB, for which he was allegedly working, to be installed by confessed KGB hacker Karl Koch (1965–3 June 1989)[9] on the AMS computers at Zurich and Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratories; here is my evidence that Linick leaked Arizona's 1350 radiocarbon date of the Shroud to the Rev. H. David Sox, an American Episcopalian priest, teaching at the American School in London[10];

[Left (enlarge): David Sox (centre), meeting with Harry Gove (right) and a BBC representative (left) in 1986[11].]

and that Sox in turn leaked that date to the media through others (see next), well before the official announcement on 13 October 1988.

• Linick was an extreme Shroud anti-authenticist. In his 1988 book, "The Shroud Unmasked," the Rev. H. David Sox, a former Shroud pro-authenticist General Secretary of the British Society of the Turin Shroud, but later turned anti-authenticist[12], quoted "Timothy Linick" as saying before Arizona's 6 May 1988 dating of the Shroud, "If we date it back 2000 years ... It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?":

"The night before the test Damon told Gove he would not be surprised to see the analysis yield a date around the fifth-century, because after that time the crucifixion was banned and a forger would not have known of the details depicted so accurately on the Shroud. Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist, said: `If we show the material to be medieval that would definitely mean that it is not authentic. If we date it back 2000 years, of course, that still leaves room for argument. It would be the right age - but is it the real thing?'"[13].

This is not only anti-authenticist of Linick, it is extreme anti-authenticist, which would not accept that the Shroud was authentic, even if its radiocarbon age was "2000 years"! That contrasts with non-extreme anti-authenticists like the late Prof. Edward Hall (1924-2001) of Oxford laboratory and the late Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009) of Rochester laboratory who quoted Hall approvingly, both of whom would have accepted that the Shroud was authentic if its carbon-date was first century (see below).

Indeed Linick's quoted words are so similar to what the extreme Shroud anti-authenticist, the late Dr Walter McCrone (1916-2002) wrote in 1981, "A date significantly later than the first century would be conclusive evidence the `Shroud' is not genuine. A date placing the linen cloth in the first century, though not conclusive in proving the cloth to be the Shroud of Christ..."[14], that it is evidence Linick was aware of, and agreed with, McCrone's 1980 claim that the Shroud "image ... was painted on the cloth ...about 1355". But Linick (unlike McCrone who was "unschooled in carbon dating"[15]) would have realised that because McCrone's "about 1355" date was when the Shroud's image was supposedly painted on the linen, the radiocarbon date for him to aim for was that of the harvesting of the flax[16], which more plausibly would have been well before 1355.

• Sox was allegedly the secondary leaker of Arizona's "1350 AD" date. In the first of many leaks of the Shroud's carbon dating results[17], on 3 July 1988, columnist Kenneth Rose (1924-2014) in the London Sunday Telegraph reported on

[Right: The late Kenneth Rose[18], was the first to leak on 3 July 1988 that the carbon dating of the Shroud would be "medieval". Rose kept detailed private diaries from the 1940s until his death this year, totalling "six million words," which are being edited for publication by historian D. Richard Thorpe[19]. It will be interesting to see if Rose's published diaries mention who leaked the information to him that the Shroud would carbon date "medieval"!]

the ongoing radiocarbon dating of the Shroud that, "In spite of the intense secrecy surrounding the investigation I hear signs that the linen cloth has been proved to be mediaeval"[20]. The story was picked up by news media around the world[21]. Suspicion fell on Oxford laboratory having leaked the results, but Oxford's Prof. Hall and Dr. Hedges[22] in letter to The Times of 9 July denied that, pointing out that Oxford had not yet begun its dating of the Shroud[23].

On 21 July 1988 the BBC's Neil Cameron phoned Gove and told him that after filming the Timewatch "Shreds of Evidence" documentary on the Shroud in Zurich, between 8th[24] and 13th May 1988[25], accompanied by Sox[26] as the program's sole consultant[27], that Cameron had "gleaned ...that the shroud dated to the 13th century"[28]. Zurich carried out its dating on 26 May[29], twenty days after Arizona[30] and, according to Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper[31], Zurich's average age of the Shroud was 676 ± 24 years, which is 700-652 years before 1950[32], which in turn is 1250-1298, entirely in the thirteen century (see my uncalibrated and calibrated spreadsheet tables and and bar charts in part #5).

Then on 26 August the London Evening Standard ran a front-page story, "Shroud of Turin Really is a Fake"[33], with an accompanying article by Cambridge librarian Dr. Richard Luckett stating that "a

[Left: "Dr Richard Luckett [who] has been the Pepys Librarian at Magdalene College, Cambridge, since 1982"[34], i.e. Luckett's position in August 1988 when he leaked, allegedly on behalf of Sox, who allegedly received it from Linick, Arizona's "1350" date of the Shroud to the London Evening Standard.]

probable date of about 1350 looks likely" and remarking that "laboratories are rather leaky institutions"[35].

This generated another world-wide media frenzy, yet none of the laboratories nor the British Museum knew Luckett or how he had obtained his information[36]. It was generally assumed that the Oxford laboratory, which had completed its dating on 6 August, had leaked the "1350" date to Luckett[37]. But not only was Oxford's mean date "several decades less than 1350 AD"[38], in an Associated Press story of 9 September 1988, Luckett was quoted as saying: "I had an absolutely marvellous leak from one of the laboratories and it wasn't Oxford"[39].

Gove, knowing that Luckett's date of 1350 was Arizona's first date of the Shroud on 6 May 1988, became "worried that it might have come from someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement" (as Linick was)[40]. I have been told privately of a possible connection between Sox, Luckett and Rose, but I am not at liberty to reveal it.

On 23 September 1988, Ian Wilson in a special letter to all BSTS members, publicly named "the Revd. David Sox" as "the ... source of possibly all the leaks" and "his `inside' information ... can only have come from Arizona or Zurich"[41]. On the day of Wilson's special letter, Sox phoned Gove to deny he was the source of the leaks, but tellingly Gove did not record that he told Sox that he believed him, but on the contrary Gove later wrote that Arizona's Donahue and Damon and Turin's Gonella had come to the conclusion that "Sox was the source of the leaks"[42]. The next day, 24 September, in La Stampa, Sox was quoted as admitting he was partly to blame for the leaks: "May I be damned if I were to let the entire blame fall on myself"[43].

And since, according to Table 1 of the 1989 Nature paper, none of Zurich's dates were anywhere near 1350[44], Sox's source of the "1350" date of the Shroud, which he evidently leaked through Luckett, had to have been someone from Arizona laboratory, who was present at that first dating run, as "T W Linick" was:

"The next morning at about 8 am (6 May 1988) I arrived at the Arizona AMS facility. ... I would be the only one present outside the Arizona AMS group. Doug immediately asked me to sign the following statement: `We the undersigned, understand that radiocarbon age results for the Shroud of Turin obtained from the University of Arizona AMS facility are confidential. We agree not to communicate the results to anyone - spouse, children, friends, press, etc., until that time when results are generally available to the public.' It had been signed by D J Donahue, Brad Gore, L J Toolin, P E Damon, Timothy Jull and Art Hatheway, all connected with the Arizona AMS facility, before I signed. My signature was followed by T W Linick and P J Sercel, also from the Arizona facility"[45].

• Linick was allegedly the primary leaker of Arizona's "1350" date. How would Sox even know that Linick existed, to quote him unless Linick contacted Sox? Linick was not an Arizona laboratory

[Above: Quote of "Timothy Linick , a University of Arizona research scientist ...," on page 147 of Sox's book, "The Shroud Unmasked" (1988). This is proof beyond reasonable doubt that Linick was in direct contact with Sox in the period from just before Arizona's first dating of the Shroud as "1350" on 6 May 1988 and the last date in Sox's book "August 1988."].

leader who might be more widely known, but merely an ordinary `back room' scientist. Sox's book has at the end of its Introduction its last date before publication, "August 1988"[46], and the book had its official launch on 15 October 1988[47]. So the 16 February 1989 Nature paper to which Linick was a signatory[48] was still four months in the future. Before then, outside of radiocarbon dating circles, Linick would have been unknown.

Besides, Sox in the above page states that the context of Linick's statement was "before the test," and specifically, before the day of the test. But according to Sox's own book, there was no opportunity for Gove to talk with Linick, before the day of the test:

"Harry Gove and Shirley Brignall arrived in Tucson, Arizona at 4.00pm on 5 May, three days before Neil Cameron and I were in Zurich. ... Gove called Douglas Donahue at the Arizona lab, and he told them to be at the Physics Department at 8.00 the next morning. They were starting the preparation for their first run on the samples at 7.00am. Paul Damon called an hour later and suggested he came over to the motel and have a beer and a chat with Gove and Brignall ... Gove arrived at the Physics Department around 9.00am"[49].

In Gove's book he adds that after the Damon left, he and Brignall had dinner and then Gove was interviewed by Donahue's journalist son-in-law at 9:30 pm, and at 8 am the next morning Gove was at the Arizona laboratory[50]. So again there was no opportunity for Linick to have said the above words to Gove before the day of the test, and there is nothing in Gove's account about him chatting with Linick or the other AMS staff while they were busy preparing the samples and carrying out final checks of the AMS system. And even if Gove had talked with Linick immediately before the test, Sox later stated in writing that it was not Gove who had told him Arizona's "1350" date (see below).

So how would Sox know that Linick said the above words, unless Linick said them directly to Sox, either over the phone, by email, or letter? In Gove's list above of all those who were present at Arizona's dating on 6 May, Sox wasn't there. According to Sox's book he was in Zurich on 8 May, two days after Arizona's first dating, consulting for the BBC's Timewatch documentary on the Shroud[51]. Then Gove in his book records that he had dinner with Sox in London on 12 May[52].

On the last page of Sox's book, in an end note, Sox wrote: "Section XXIX Most of the observations in this section come from Harry Gove."[53]. That section begins with the arrival of Gove and his partner Shirley Brignall in Tucson on 5 May, the day before Arizona's first dating of the Shroud, and it ends on page 147 above with the AMS computer's calculations of the Shroud's age being displayed on the computer's screen, and that Gove won his bet that the Shroud's age would be 1000 years against Brignall's 2000 years. So Gove had to admit in his 1996 book that he told Brignall the "1350" date, in breach of his signed undertaking above "not to communicate the results to anyone"[54] and he must have told Sox that the Shroud's age, according to Arizona's first dating, was closer to 1000 years than 2000. But Gove makes it abundantly clear that he never divulged to Sox that Arizona's first date was "1350"[55], and he was puzzled when Luckett stated the radiocarbon date of the Shroud was "1350"[56]. And indeed Sox, in a copy of a letter forwarded to Gove, stated, "Gove didn't [tell me the 1350 date of the Shroud]"[57].

Moreover, Gove would be most unlikely to quote Linick's words to Sox, given again that Linick was just another Arizona scientist. If Gove had wanted to make a similar statement, he would be perfectly capable of saying it himself, and with more weight than Linick. That is if Gove agreed with its extreme anti-authenticity, which going by Gove's approving quote of Oxford's Prof. Hall, that, "if the carbon date turned out to be around the start of the first century AD, he [Hall] would then find it difficult to dismiss the shroud's authenticity:"[58], Gove didn't agree with Linick's and McCrone's extreme anti-authenticism.

Neither Sox nor Gove said anything in their books about Sox flying to Arizona before its dating on 6 May, or after Zurich's dating on 26 May and before his book was published in August. And why would Sox go over there? He would have had his hands full writing his book in record time. Also, Sox was employed as a teacher at the American School in London (see above). So either someone in Arizona lab quoted Linick's words to Sox (and why would anyone do that when they could say it themselves?), and then Sox quoted Linick's words as hearsay in his book (a dangerous thing for an author to do especially in such a controversial topic). The publisher of Sox's book, to avoid possible legal action by Linick, would have routinely checked with Sox to make sure that Linick said those words directly to Sox. Finally, Sox's quote of Linick is in quotation marks, which means that Linick did say those words directly to Sox. Otherwise Sox would have had to preface Linick's words with something like, "X, in the Arizona laboratory before the dating of the Shroud, heard Timothy Linick, an Arizona laboratory scientist, say ..." So the simplest (if not the only reasonable) explanation is that Linick communicated his quoted words directly to Sox over the phone, or by a written account. And since Sox was the secondary source of the leak of Arizona's "1350" leak (see above), the inference is irresistible that Linick was the leaker of Arizona's "1350" date to Sox.

While this does not alone prove that Linick was the alleged primary hacker, who wrote and installed a program on Arizona's AMS computer (and indirectly on the counterpart computers at Zurich and Oxford), which replaced the Shroud's first (or early because of irremovable contamination by younger carbon) century radiocarbon dates with computer-generated dates which, when calibrated, and averaged, yielded the `bull's eye' date of 1325 ±65, it is consistent with, and evidence for, my theory that he was. And as we shall see next, there is further evidence that Linnick was allegedly the primary hacker.

To be continued in the first installment of part #10(7).

1. This post is copyright. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. Except that I grant permission, without having to ask me, for anyone to copy the title and one paragraph only (including one associated graphic) of any of my posts, provided that if they repost it on the Internet a link to my post from which it came is included. See my post of May 8, 2014. [return]
2. Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.6. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1988a, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.19. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.6-7. [return]
6. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.264. [return]
7. Wilson, 1988a, p.19. [return]
8. Jull, A.J.T. & Suess, H.E. , 1989, "Timothy W. Linick," Radiocarbon, Vol 31, No 2. [return]
9. "WikiFreaks, Pt. 4 `The Nerds Who Played With Fire'," The Psychedelic Dungeon, 15 September 2010. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.176G. [return]
11. Wilson, 1998, p.234. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Sox, 1988, p.147. [return]
14. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.138. [return]
15. Gove, 1996, p.49. [return]
16. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
18. "Kenneth Rose - obituary," The Telegraph, 29 January 2014. [return]
19. Shawcross, W., 2014, "Kenneth Rose: we'll miss his wit, warmth and wry sense of humour," The Telegraph, 1 February. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1988b, "On the Recent `Leaks'," British Society for the Turin Shroud, 23 September. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.272. [return]
22. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
23. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.91. [return]
24. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
25. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
26. Sox, 1988, p.160. [return]
27. Wilson, I., 1988c, "Two Recent B.B.C. Television Programmes," BSTS Newsletter, No. 20, October, p.23. [return]
28. Gove, 1996, p.274. [return]
29. Guerrera, V., 2000, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.131. [return]
30. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.87. [return]
31. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, p.613. [return]
32. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
33. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
34. "Birthdays: Dr Richard Luckett," The Times, July 1 2010. [return]
35. Wilson, 1988b. [return]
36. Ibid. [return]
37. Gove, 1996, p.277. [return]
38. Gove, 1996, pp.277-278. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.278. [return]
40. Gove, 1996, p.279. [return]
41. Wilson, I., 1988b. [return]
42. Gove, 1996, p.281. [return]
43. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.95. [return]
44. Damon, 1989, p.613, 611. According to Table 1, the mean uncalibrated dates of Zurich's five Shroud samples runs were: 733, 722, 635, 639 and 679 years before 1950, which equates to 1217, 1228, 1315, 1311 and 1271. [return]
45. Gove, 1996, p.262. [return]
46. Sox, 1988, p.6. [return]
47. Wilson, 1998, p.311. [return]
48. Damon, 1989, p.611. [return]
49. Sox, 1988, pp.143,145. [return]
50. Gove, 1996, pp.261-262. [return]
51. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
52. Gove, 1996, p.267. [return]
53. Sox, 1988, p.135. [return]
54. Gove, 1996, p.265. [return]
55. Gove, 1996, pp.267, 276, 281, 283. [return]
56. Gove, 1996, pp.277-281. [return]
57. Gove, 1996, p.283. [return]
58. Gove, 1996, pp.184-185. [return]

Created: 5 March, 2015. Updated: 14 March, 2015.

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

"A": Turin Shroud Dictionary

Turin Shroud Dictionary
© Stephen E. Jones[1]


This is page "A" of my re-started Turin Shroud Dictionary. Entries are based on the index pages of my general Shroud books. I will populate the entries quickly `off the top of my head' and then continue to update entries behind the scenes as they occur to me. I will delete unpopulated entries if this page gets too long and then if it is still too long, I will split it into pages "Ab-Am" and "An-Az", etc. See the "Main index A-Z" page for links to other pages in, and information about, this dictionary.

[Index] [Previous: Index] [Next: "B"]

Abgar V, (4BC–AD50). A king of Edessa, who according to Eusebius, wrote to Jesus asking Him to come and heal him of a

[Right (enlarge): Tenth century icon in Saint Catherine's Monastery, Sinai, depicting Abgar V receiving the Mandylion (the Shroud doubled-in-four) from the disciple Thaddaeus (Addai.]

disease. In a dictated reply letter Jesus promised that after His ascension He would send a disciple (Thaddeus) to heal Abgar.

accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS)
Accetta, August
Acts of Thaddaeus
Addai (see Thaddaeus)

Adler, Alan D. Alan D. Adler (1932-2000) was Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Western Connecticut State College. He was an authority on porphyrins and blood chemistry. Adler was a member of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), but not one of the original team which went to Turin in 1978 to examine the Shroud. Together with Dr John H. Heller, Adler examined particles of blood on sticky tapes pressed onto the Shroud by STURP and found that the bloodstains on the Shroud are real blood. They also found that the blood was on the cloth before the image (which effectively refutes all forgery theories) and that the red colour of Shroud blood is due to high levels of bilirubin, consistent with the blood of a crucifixion victim. Adler's collected works in "The Orphaned Manuscript" (2002) will be published online in mid-2015 in the 2002 Special Issue of Shroud Spectrum International. [See: 1, 2, 3 & 4.]

Alexis, St.
Allen, Nicholas

Amadeus IX (1435–1472), Duke of Savoy. Inherited the Shroud from his father Duke Louis I of Savoy (1413–65). Amadeus and his wife Yolande de Valois (1436-1478), daughter of King Charles VII (1403-1461), were devoted to the Shroud. Their eldest surviving son Philibert I (1465-1482), became Duke of Savoy on the death of Amadeus IX in 1472. [See 1]

anatomically accurate

Anne de Lusignan of Cyprus (1415–62), was the wife of Duke Louis I of Savoy (1413–65), who received the Shroud in 1453 from Marguerite de Charny (1390-1460)> She in turn had inherited it from her father Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–1398). Anne had expressed a strong interest in seeing the Shroud. Until her marriage at age ~19 to Louis in 1434, Anne had lived in Cyprus, near the Church of the Acheiropoietos (Greek "made without hands"). So she would have seen images of the Mandylion (the Shroud "doubled-in-four"), and would have recognised the resemblance between the face on the Mandylion and that of the Man on Marguerite de Charny's Shroud. So Anne would have been crucial in persuading both Marguerite to transfer the Shroud to the House of Savoy and Louis to accept it. [see 1]

Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory.
artistic theories
Ashe, Geoffrey

Aymon IV of Geneva (c.1324-1388). Wealthy second husband of Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332–1428), whose first husband was Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300–1356), the first undisputed owner of the Shroud. Aymon married Jeanne in c.1359 and took her, her young son Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–1398) and the Shroud, to his High Savoy estates around Anthon, where it remained until his death in c.1388. Was uncle of Avignon Pope Clement VII (1342–94), who unexpectedly sided with Geoffroy II against Bishop Pierre d'Arcis (c.1300-1395) who wanted the second exhibition of the Shroud in Lirey c.1389 stopped. [See 1]

1. This page, and each page in my Turin Shroud Dictionary, is copyright. However, permission is granted to quote from one entry at a time within a page (e.g. "Abgar V," not the whole page "A"), provided a link and/or reference is provided back to the page in this dictionary it came from. [return].

Created: 4 March, 2015. Updated: 28 March, 2015.

Monday, February 16, 2015

Locations of the Shroud: Lirey c.1355 - Chambéry 1471: Turin Shroud Encyclopedia

Turin Shroud Encyclopedia
© Stephen E. Jones

Locations of the Shroud: Lirey c.1355 - Chambéry 1471

This is the entry, "Locations of the Shroud: Lirey c.1355 - Chambéry 1471." I am working through the topics in the entry, "Shroud of Turin, expanding on them.

[Index] [Previous: Dimensions of the Shroud] [Next: Locations of the Shroud: Chambéry 1471 - Turin 1578]

Introduction. This three-part series of entries will trace the locations of the cloth today known as Shroud of Turin, from its first appearance in undisputed history[1] at Lirey, France in c.1355, to its current location, since 1578, in St John the Baptist Cathedral, Turin, Italy. It is partly based on my 2012 post, "The Shroud's location."

[Above: Extract from Ian Wilson's "Travels of the Shroud" map[2]. The left-most arrowed route to "Paris 1307" should be ignored as it was part of Wilson's Templar theory, which he no longer holds[3]. Also the "1418" after "Montfort" is incorrect as the Shroud was at a different "Montfort" in 1418 (see below).]

Lirey (c.1355-1357). The first undisputed appearance of the Shroud was at Lirey collegiate church, in c.1355 when it

[Right (enlarge): Pilgrim's badge from the Shroud's first undisputed exhibition at Lirey, France in c.1355-57[4].]

was exhibited by Geoffroy I de Charny (c.1300-1356) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy (c.1332-1428). And after Geoffroy's 1356 death in the Battle of Poitiers, the Shroud continued to be exhibited by Jeanne de Vergy until at least 1357 [Lirey (1)].]

Montfort (c.1358-1359). In 1358, following the French defeat at the 1356 Battle of Poitiers in which Geoffroy I died,

[Left (enlarge): The east tower of Montfort-en-Auxois castle: Burgundy Tourism.]

marauding bands of English soldiers attacked French towns, including nearby Troyes. So Jeanne probably took her young son Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–1398), and the Shroud, from Lirey south to the comparative safety of her castle at Montfort-en-Auxois[5].

Anthon (c.1359-1388) . In c.1359 Jeanne married the wealthy Aymon IV of Geneva (c. 1324-1388) and took Geoffroy II and the Shroud from Montfort to one of Aymon's estates in High Savoy (that part of France bordering both Switzerland and Italy), probably Anthon.

[Right (enlarge): Chateau at Anthon Isère (not Anthon High Savoy) built in 1315 by Guichard d'Anthon[6], presumably Aymon IV's great uncle Guichard VI d'Anthon (c. 1278-1320), which Aymon inherited through his mother Isabelle d'Anthon (c.1307-1335). Being part of Aymon IV's estates, it is possible (albeit less likely) that Jeanne, Geoffroy II and Aymon IV lived here with the Shroud for ~29 years between 1359 and 1388.]

Aymon was an uncle of Robert of Geneva (1342–1394), the future first Avignon Pope Clement VII (†1378-1394). And Aymon's domains were close to Annecy where Clement VII had been born and grew up. It is likely that Jeanne had arranged a private viewing of the Shroud to Robert before, or upon him becoming Pope in 1378 (see next). Both Aymon IV and Geoffroy II were knights of the Order of the Collar of Savoy, as was Humbert de Villersexel (1385-1437), the second husband of Geoffroy II's daughter Marguerite de Charny (1390-1460). That, and the many years that Jeanne and Geoffroy II lived in High Savoy, helps explain the transfer of the Shroud by the childless Marguerite to the House of Savoy in 1453.

Lirey (1389-c.1418). Aymon died in 1388 and so Jeanne returned to Lirey with the Shroud. Which explains the complaint of the local Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d'Arcis' (c. 1300-95), in his c.1389 Memorandum, that following the Shroud's first exhibition at Lirey in c.1355, it had been "kept ... hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year [1389]"[7]. Jeanne then passed the Shroud over to her son Geoffroy II, who had presumably returned to Lirey when he attained his age of majority in 1373. Geoffroy married Marguerite de Poitiers (1362-1418), Bishop Henri's niece, in c.1389, so the Shroud may have been Jeanne's wedding present to him! Geoffroy then sought and received permission to exhibit the Shroud from Pope Clement VII, through his Savoy-born legate Cardinal Pierre de Thury, bypassing Bishop d'Arcis. According to Bishop d'Arcis' Memorandum, which is

[Left (enlarge): Part of Bishop Pierre d'Arcis' c.1389 Memorandum, showing that it is only a rough draft. And since no other record exists of d'Arcis' appeal to the Pope, but the Pope did reply to d'Arcis, it is likely that the Bishop made his complaint verbally through Cardinal Thury.]

only a draft, unsigned, and undated, he claimed that one of his predecessors, Bishop Henri de Poitiers (c.1327-1370), had investigated the Shroud when it was first exhibited at Lirey in c.1355, and had found that it was just a painting. But there is no evidence that Bishop de Poitiers had a problem with the Shroud, rather the contrary, and the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) in 1978 conclusively proved that the Shroud is not a painting. Unbeknown to Bishop d'Arcis, Pope Clement evidently knew the truth about the Shroud, from Jeanne, the wife of his near neighbour and uncle Aymon (see above). And indeed in correspondence with Bishop d'Arcis, the Pope let it slip that he had personally corresponded with Geoffroy II on the matter. So in what must have been a surprise to the Bishop (to put it mildly), Pope Clement VII sided with Geoffroy II against him, and decreed that the second Lirey exhibition should continue, albeit with less ceremony and toned-down claims. Moreover, the Pope ordered "perpetual silence" from Bishop d'Arcis on this matter, or be excommunicated! It is not known for how long the second Lirey exhibition of the Shroud continued. The Hundred Years War between England and France had entered an extended period of peace from 1389–1415. So there is no reason why the second Lirey exhibition of the Shroud did not continue until Geoffroy II's death in 1398, or even beyond it until 1418, since the Shroud was until that year under the control of the canons of Lirey church (see below).

St. Hippolyte-sur-le-Doubs (1418-37). Following Geoffrey II's death in 1398, his eldest child, the ~8 year-old Marguerite de Charny inherited the Shroud. Geoffrey II's widow, Marguerite de Poitiers (c.1362 -1418) married Guillaume de Noyers (c.1360-1409) and they had a son, Charles de Noyers (c.1401-1459). Presumably Marguerite and her two younger sisters Henriette (c.1395-1460) and Jeanne (1397-1406) went to live with their mother on Guillaume's estates in Bergundy, and the Shroud remained in Lirey under the control of the canons of Lirey church. Marguerite married Jean de Bauffremont (1380-1415), who was killed without issue at the Battle of Agincourt on 25 October 1415, which marked the resumption of the Hundred Years' War between England and France. Marguerite then in 1416 married Humbert de Villersexel, a knight of the Order of the Collar of Savoy, as was Aymon IV and Geoffroy II (as we saw above). Marguerite lived with Humbert at his castle also called "Montfort"

[Right (enlarge): 1670 depiction of the Grotto Chateau de la Roche, St. Hippolyte-sur-le-Doubs[8], which was destroyed in 1665. Presumably this was the "Montfort" in which Marguerite de Charny and Humbert de Villersexel lived with the Shroud between 1418-38.]

at Saint-Hippolyte-sur-le-Doubs, near the border of Savoy, and the borders of Germany and Switzerland. As before after the Battle of Poitiers (see above), after their crushing victory at Agincourt, English soldiers remained in France, looting defenceless French towns. In 1418 Lirey itself came under threat and so the canons of Lirey church asked Humbert to temporarily take the Shroud to the safety of his castle in far eastern France. This was done and in a letter dated 6 July 1418, Humbert acknowledged receiving various relics from the Lirey church including, "a cloth, on which is the figure or representation of the Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is in a casket emblazoned with the de Charny crest"[9]. The Shroud in its casket was deposited in Humbert's Chapel des Buessarts, and for the next twenty years the Shroud was brought out each year for display (see plaque below). In her time at St. Hippolyte, Marguerite lost her daughter Jeanne de Charny in c.1406, her mother Marguerite de Poitiers in 1418, and her grandmother Jeanne de Vergy in 1428 (aged ~96!).

With Marguerite de Charny (1437-1453). Humbert died in 1437, with Marguerite now aged ~48 and still childless. Although Humbert had been previously married, he had no children from that marriage either, so Humbert's properties were inherited by his nearest male relative, François de la Palud (?-1456), who was also Marguerite's nephew by marriage. Humbert's will provided that Marguerite was trustee of the Shroud. So Marguerite left St. Hippolyte taking the Shroud with her, holding known public exhibitions at Liege, Belgium (1449) and Germolles (1452) - see map above. But Humbert in his 1418 letter (above) had promised that he would return to the Lirey church

[Left: Modern day plaque in the church of St Hippolyte sur Doubs[10], which translated, states that: "The Holy Shroud of our Lord Jesus Christ, brought to France during the 4th crusade and given to the Count Humbert de la Roche of St Hippolyte by the canons of Lirey was venerated in this chapel for 34 years then given to the Duke Louis of Savoy by Marguerite de Charny, widow of count Humbert"[11].]

all its relics, including the Shroud, when the English threat to it had ended. So upon Humbert's death the canons of Lirey demanded that Marguerite return the relics, including the Shroud, to them. But Marguerite refused, pointing out that she did not sign Humbert's letter and the Shroud was her property, not his. So in 1443 she was summoned by the Lirey canons before the parliament of Dole, France, which had jurisdiction over St. Hippolyte. Marguerite agreed to return the other relics, but she refused to hand over the Shroud, on the grounds that the danger from the English had not yet passed and the wooden Lirey church had become dilapidated. She again insisted that the Shroud was a personal possession of her family, acquired by her grandfather, Geoffroy I de Charny as a spoil of war ("conquis par feu" = "conquered by fire"), and that it never belonged to the Lirey church (it was never listed on the church's inventories). With the legal assistance of her half-brother Charles de Noyers, this was extended until 1446 and then extended further to 1449 and 1451, by other courts and officials, on the agreed condition that Marguerite made payments for the repair and upkeep of the Lirey church. But in 1452, with the danger to Lirey from the English having passed, and the church having been fully repaired, Marguerite was excommunicated by a Besançon ecclesiastical court, because of her continued refusal to hand over the Shroud to the Lirey church. By 1453 the childless, twice-widowed Marguerite was in her sixties, and had been the custodian of the Shroud for 35 years. Marguerite de Charny never did hand over the Shroud to the Lirey church, and (see next), she did not bequeath it to any of her relatives either, but in 1353 transferred the Shroud to the House of Savoy.

Geneva (22 March 1453). On 22 March 1453, in Geneva (presumably at Château de Chillon or Chillon Castle)

[Right (enlarge): The Château de Chillon (or Chillon Castle)[12] which presumably was the place in Geneva where Marguerite de Charny handed over the Shroud to Duke Louis I of Savoy.]

Marguerite transferred ownership of the Shroud to Duke Louis I of Savoy (1413-1465) and his wife Anne de Lusignan of Cyprus (1415–1462). In return, the Duke ceded to Marguerite his castle at Varambon and the revenues of his estate of Miribel, both in eastern France, in return for unspecified "valuable services." This can only have been the transfer of ownership of the Shroud. Varambon had been for generations the seat of the de la Palud family until it was confiscated by Duke Louis I from Marguerite's nephew and Humbert's heir, François de la Palud. Marguerite had previously petitioned King Charles VII (1403–61), that Louis pay compensation for what he had taken from her nephew, so presumably this was a face-saving way for Louis to return Varambon to its rightful owner. The revenues from Miribel were already exhausted, so in 1455 Louis took it back replaced it with the town and manor of Flumet, in High Savoy. Marguerite did not profit from the exchange. It was not a commercial transaction (if it had been Marguerite could have asked and received much more for the Shroud) but the Duke and Duchess wanted to express their gratitude to Marguerite in a tangible way, and also to be able to confirm in law that they now owned the Shroud. Therefore the repeated claim by professional Shroud sceptic, Joe Nickell, that Marguerite "sold" the Shroud for "two castles"[13] is false. As Ian Wilson pointed out, "Margaret was now in her seventies, and one can scarcely suppose that at this stage in her life she should have been particularly interested in acquiring real estate"[14]! The Duke's wife, Anne de Lusignan, had previously expressed an interest in the Shroud and was eager to possess it. Until her marriage Anne had lived in Cyprus, and the Church of the Acheiropoietos (Greek "made without hands"), at Lapithos, Cyprus, dedicated to the Mandylion (the Shroud "doubled-in-four"), was not far from where she had lived. So it is likely that Anne recognised the resemblance between the face on the Mandylion and that on Marguerite de Charny's Shroud. If Anne also knew the story that Marguerite's Shroud had been looted from Constantinople (see plaque above) then she may have realised that the Shroud was the lost Mandylion (or at least a very old copy of it)! Similarly, Marguerite would likely have seen in Anne a kindred spirit, who truly valued the Shroud. That, coupled with Duke Louis and Anne's well-known piety, and their power to ensure the safety of the Shroud, would have all been factors in persuading Marguerite to pass on the Shroud to the House of Savoy, who went on to own it for the next 530 years! When the canons of Lirey discovered in 1457 that Marguerite had ceded the Shroud to the Savoys, they had her excommunicated by the ecclesiastical court of Besançon, unless the Shroud was returned to them. They were again paid off again temporarily by Marguerite, and in 1459 lifted the excommunication, having been paid off by Duke Louis.

Geneva - Chambéry (1453-65). After the Shroud became the property of the Dukes of Savoy on 22 March 1453, it initially had no fixed abode. The Savoy family carried the Shroud around with them on their travels. However, it is likely that the Shroud was within a few days transferred from Duke Louis' Geneva castle to his Chateau in the Savoy capital Chambéry, in far south-eastern France, near the borders of Italy and Switzerland.

[Left (enlarge): Château of the Dukes of Chambéry[15]. In the 14th century this was the principal residence of the Savoys. So initially the Shroud would have been held here, when it was not travelling with a Duke.]

Marguerite de Charny died on 7 October 1460, having bequeathed her titles and lands, including Lirey, to her cousin and godson, Antoine Guerry des Essarts (c. 1408-74), the son of Bishop Henri de Poitiers' illegitimate daughter Guillemette (c. 1380-1450). As there would be no legal requirement for Marguerite to leave her titles and lands to the son of an illegitimate child, she must have done so because she was a close friend of her aunt Guillemette. This is further evidence that, contrary to Bishop d'Arcis' claim in his 1389 Memorandum, Bishop de Poitiers had no problem with the exhibition of the Shroud at Lirey in c. 1355. Even after Marguerite's death the canons of Lirey kept demanding the Shroud be returned to them. Finally in 1464 Duke Louis paid them out with a large sum of money, and an annual rent from the revenues of his one of his castles as compensation for their loss of the Shroud. Considering that the Lirey church never owned the Shroud, it having been left in their hands when Geoffroy II unexpectedly died in 1398, and Marguerite was his heir and so was the Shroud's rightful owner, the Lirey canons' continual demands over a long period of time that the Shroud be returned to them, or Marguerite would be excommunicated, unless they were paid large sums of money, was simply extortion! On 11 November 1462 Anne died in Geneva, followed on 29 January 1465 by Duke Louis at Lyon.

Chambéry (1465-71). On Duke Louis I's death in 1465, his eldest child, Amadeus IX (1435-72), inherited his father's title and properties, including the Shroud. He shared with his wife Duchess Yolande de Valois (1434-1478), a devotion to the Shroud. Yolande was a daughter of the late King Charles VII of France(1403-61) and a sister of the reigning King Louis XI (1423-83), whose Queen was Charlotte of Savoy (1441-83), Amadeus' sister! Yolande had been betrothed to Amadeus in 1436, when she was four years old, and she had lived at the Savoy court since then, as was the custom. So she would have been ~19 when her grandfather Louis I received the Shroud in 1453. In 1452, Amadeus and Yolande were married, and after that they had walked from Vercelli, Italy to Chambéry, a distance of ~ 280 km (~170 miles), in an act of veneration of the Shroud. In 1471, a year before his death, Amadeus IX began the enlargement and embellishment of the Dukes' chapel at Chambéry, to make it a worthy home for the Shroud. But Amadeus suffered from epilepsy and had delegated to Yolande the government of his territories. In 1471 Yolande founded the convent in Chambéry of the Poor Clare nuns. In that same year Francesco della Rovere (1414-84), one of Duke Louis I's Franciscan retinue, was elected Pope Sixtus IV (†1471-84).

Continued in, "Locations of the Shroud: Chambéry 1471 - Turin 1578."

1. The term "undisputed history" is Ian Wilson's, in his 1996, "Highlights of the Undisputed History." By "undisputed" Wilson means, "documented history of the Shroud of Turin," not that no one disputes it. But in fact the overwhelming majority of leading Shroud sceptics accept that the Lirey Shroud was the Shroud of Turin. The sole exception (as far as I am aware) is that of professional conspiracy theorists Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince, who claim that the Shroud was faked photographically by Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). But Leonardo was born almost a century after the Shroud's first exhibition at Lirey in c.1355, so Picknett and Prince have to maintain, against all the evidence, that the Shroud of Turin is Leonardo's 1492 fake which had been substituted by the House of Savoy for the supposedly `inferior' Shroud of Lirey, which was then destroyed. [return]
2. Wilson, I. 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Gollancz: London, inside cover. [return]
3. "So obviously there remains an unexplained gap between 1204 and the 1350s (and my suggestion of Templar ownership during this period has never been more than tentative and provisional - please note that I no longer support the claims for this ..." Wilson, I., 2012, "Discovering more of the Shroud's Early History: A promising new approach ...," Talk for the International Congress on the Holy Shroud in Spain, Aula Magna of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain, 28-30 April, 2012, p.2. [return]
4. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," [return]
5. Montfort-en-Auxois, aka Montigny-Montfort. In the map above it is at the location shown as "Montfort 1418" but the "1418" is wrong, being confused with Montfort castle at St. Hippolyte-sur-le-Doubs. [return]
6. "Château des Panettes," Châteaux de France, 8 October 2014. Translated by Google. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.228, 241. [return]
8. "Grotte de la Roche: Histoire et Mysteres...," Office de tourisme de la Communauté de communes de Saint-Hippolyte (Doubs). [return]
9. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.212. [return]
10. Jean Espirat, "Photos of Saint-Hippolyte," [return]
11. Duncan, H., 2006, " The Turin Shroud in a 15th century Fresco in St Hippolyte," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 63, June. [return]
12. "Château de Chillon," Wikipedia, 1 February 2015. Photograph, "Castle_of_Chillon_N.jpg"," by Zacharie Grossen, 3 July 2014. [return]
13. Nickell, J., 1993, "Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, p.23; Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, pp.18-19 & Nickell, J., 2007, "Relics of the Christ," The University Press of Kentucky: Lexington KY, p.133. [return]
14. Wilson, 1979, p.214. [return]
15. "Château des Ducs de Savoie à Chambéry," Week-end. [return]

• "Chambéry," Wikipedia, 14 February 2015.
• "Yolande of Valois," Wikipedia, 13 March 2014.
• Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.33
• Brucker, E., 1998, "Thy Holy Face: My 39 Years of Lecturing on the Shroud of Turin," Brucker: Tucson AZ, pp.15-16
• Crispino, D.C., 1981, "Why Did Geoffroy de Charny Change His Mind?," Shroud Spectrum International, #1, December, pp.28-34, p.29.
• Crispino, D.C., 1982, "The Report of the Poor Clare Nuns," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 2, March, pp.19-28, pp.20, 22.
• Crispino, D.C., 1983a, "Louis I, Duke of Savoy," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 7, June, pp.7-14, pp.9, 13.
• Crispino, D.C., 1983b, "The Castle of Montfort," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 8, September, pp.35-40.
• Crispino, D.C., 1988, "To Know the Truth: A Sixteenth Century Document with Excursus," Shroud Spectrum International, #28/29, September/December, pp.25-40, p.38.
• Currer-Briggs, N., 1988, "The Shroud and the Grail: A Modern Quest for the True Grail," St. Martin's Press: New York NY, pp.35-37, 44-46, 65.
• Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.16-17, 35, 220-221.
• de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.15-17.
• Duncan, H., 2013, "The Shroud in Montfort, 1418-?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 77, June.
• Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.12-13, 14-16.
• Humber, T., 1978, "The Sacred Shroud," [1974], Pocket Books: New York NY, pp.103-105.
• Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.129.
• Jones, S.E., 2015, "de Charny Family Tree," (members only).
• Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.49, 53, 64-65.
• Piana, A., 2007, "The Shroud's "Missing Years," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 66. December.
• Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.66.
• Sox, H.D., 1978, "File on the Shroud," Coronet: London, pp.41-43.
• Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.47-48, 102-103.
• Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, pp.42-43, 46-47.
• Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, pp.41, 50-51, 53.
• Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.85-87, 193, 203-210, 214-218, 260-261.
• Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.12-13.
• Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.14-21. • Wilson, 1994, pp.20-25.
• Wilson, I., 1994, "A Chronology of the Shroud 1452-1509," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 38, August/September, pp.20-25, pp.19-20.
• Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p, pp.4, 116-122, 126-128, 130, 132, 210-211, 279-283.
• Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.221-222, 229-245, 302-303.

Created: 16 February. Updated: 22 March, 2015.