The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (1): Burns and water stains

This post "2.6. The other marks (1): Burns and water stains" is part 12 of my series, "The Shroud of Turin." As the title indicates, it is about the burn marks from the 1532 fire and water stains from putting out that fire. The previous post was part 11, "2.5. The bloodstains." The series was originally titled, "The Shroud of Jesus?" but I have changed it to "The Shroud of Turin" so that posts in the series are more easily found by a search engine. For further information about this series, see the Contents page (part 1).

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.6. THE OTHER MARKS (1): BURNS AND WATER STAINS
© Stephen E. Jones

By "other marks" is meant those significant marks on the Shroud of Turin which are not wounds (see "2.4. The wounds") or bloodstains (see "2.5. The Bloodstains"). They are considered below in the order of most to least obvious (not the most to least important).

Burns The most obvious[1] (and no doubt most puzzling to a newcomer to the Shroud) marks on the Shroud are burns from a fire in 1532[2]. A copy of the Shroud painted in 1516 which is held in the Church of St. Gommare, Lierre, Belgium, does not show these burns[3].

[Right: Burns to the Shroud from the 1532 fire (outlined in green): Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical: Overlays: Burn Holes (1532 A.D.)]

Since 1502 [4] the Shroud had been kept within a silver casket[5], behind an iron grille[6] secured by four locks[7], and set into a wall of the Savoy royal family's Sainte-Chapelle (Holy Chapel) at Chambéry, France[8].

[Above: Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry, France: Wikipedia.]

On the night of 4 December 1532 a fire broke out in the chapel [9], but the grille's four locks required four different keys: two held by the Duke of Savoy, one by the Duke's counsellor Canon Philibert Lambert[10], and one by the President of the Treasury [11]. As the Shroud would have been destroyed by the time the other keyholders arrived with their keys[12], the Duke's blacksmith[13], Guillaume Pussod, was summoned to force open the grille[14]. If it were not for the courage and strength of this unsung hero the Shroud would have been destroyed[15]. So intense was the heat that the Shroud's silver casket had started to melt[16] but Pussod forced open the grille[17], and with the help of Lambert and two priests, carried the casket to safety[18]. However, a piece of molten silver from the casket's lid fell into the casket[19] and set fire to one edge of the Shroud[20]. After pouring buckets of water into the casket the fire was put out [21]. But it was found that the piece of molten silver had burned itself through one edge of all forty-eight layers[22] in which the Shroud had evidently been folded[23]. Miraculously, however, the image, except for the front shoulders and upper arms[24], was not affected[25].

[Above: Interior of the Sainte-Chapelle, Chambéry as it is today. The hole in the wall (see inset) where the Shroud was kept in a silver casket behind an iron grille from 1502 to 1532, is behind the altar to the left[26].]

And as we shall see in "6.Science and the Shroud," the intense heat generated by the fire, estimated to have been between 200° to 300°C inside the casket[27], and the superheated steam generated by dousing with water the molten silver within the close confines of the Shroud's casket[28], formed a "natural experiment"[29] which provides further evidence that the Shroud image is not a painting[30] nor is it a bas relief or statue powder rubbbing[31] because the image did not run, migrate[32] or change colour as any medieval paint, pigment, dye or powder would have under that very high temperature[33]. This therefore is another problem for the forgery theory[§10].

In 1534, to stabilise the damage to the Shroud, it was sent to Chambéry's convent of Poor Clare nuns[34] where four nuns sewed linen patches over the burns[35] and added a Holland cloth backing[36]. It wasn't until 2002 that the patches and Holland cloth were removed[37] as part of a restoration of the Shroud[38].

Water stains After the burn marks the most prominent marks on the Shroud are water stains[39]. These are from the water poured onto the burning Shroud in its casket on the night of the 1532 fire[21] (see above). Iron oxide particles from the retting process of making flax were found to have migrated to the edges of the water stains[40] but no paint, pigment, dye or powder did[41]. So this is yet another problem for the forgery theory[§11].

[Above: Two sets of three repeating water stains on the Shroud (e.g. the oval shape between the front and back head images is a water stain as is the diamond shape below the man's chest.): Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical]

NOTES
1. 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.11-12. [return]
2. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.24. [return]
3. Wilson, 1979, p.25. [return]
4. Wilson, 1979, p.218. [return]
5. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.2. [return]
6. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.22. [return]
7. 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.65. [return]
8. Ruffin, 1999, p.67. [return]
9. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
10. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.4. [return]
11. Crispino, D., 1982, "The Report of the Poor Clare Nuns," Shroud Spectrum International, March, p.19.[return]
12. Wilson, 1986, p.2. [return]
13. Rinaldi, P.M., 1978, "The Man in the Shroud," Futura: London, Revised, p.20. [return]
14. 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.64. [return]
15. Wilson, 1986, p.2. [return]
16. Wilson, 1986, p.2. [return]
17. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.253. [return]
18. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
19. Wilson, 2101, p.14. [return]
20. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
21. Rinaldi, 1978, p.20. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
23. Wilson, 1986, p.2. [return]
24. Wilson, 1998, pp.22-23. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
26. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.19. [return]
27. Culliton, B.J., 1978, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin Challenges 20th-Century Science," Science, Vol. 201, 21 July, p.236. [return]
28. Wilson, 1991, p.176. [return]
29. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.48 [return]
30. Antonacci, 2000, pp.48. [return]
31. Antonacci, 2000, pp.73-74. [return]
32. Antonacci, 2000, p.48. [return]
33. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.85-86. [return]
34. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
35. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
37. Wilson, 2010, p.15. [return]
38. Wilson, 2010, pp.14-15. [return]
39. Rinaldi, 1978, p.2. [return]
40. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, pp.60-61. [return]
41. Antonacci, 2000, p.48. [return]
§10, §11. To be further examined under "9. Problems of the forgery theory". [return]

---

Continued in part 13, "2.6. The other marks (2): Poker holes."

Last updated: 15 July, 2013.

The Shroud of Turin: 2.5. The bloodstains

This is part 11, "2.5. The bloodstains" in my series, The Shroud of Turin My previous post in this series was part 10, "2.4. The wounds." See the Contents page (part 1) for more information.

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.5. THE BLOODSTAINS
© Stephen E. Jones

Bloodstains. The Shroud has major bloodstains on the head (front and back)[1], the wrists[2], the right side[3], the small of the back[4] and the feet [5].

[Above (click to enlarge): Blood (red) on the Shroud face in fluorescent light[6].]

Blood. Many different chemical[7] and physical[8] tests have confirmed that the bloodstains on the Shroud are real blood[9]. Other tests have confirmed the blood is type AB[10], which is more frequent in Jewish people[11]. Fragments of human[12], male[13] DNA have been identified in samples from the bloodstains[14]. The bloodflows are anatomically[15] and scientifically accurate[16]. The bloodstains have serum haloes at their margins, due to the blood retracting as it dries, leaving a border of clear serum behind[17]. But since blood serum haloes are visible only in ultraviolet light[18] and ultraviolet light was first discovered in 1801 by Johann Wilhelm Ritter, no artist before the 19th century could have depicted them[19]. So this is another major problem for the forgery theory[§5]. Unlike the Shroud's image, the bloodstains are not photographically negative[20], being white on a negative of a photograph of the Shroud[21]. That the blood appears too reddish[22], unlike the brown or black of other old blood[23], is explained by the high level of bilirubin in the blood of a crucifixion victim[24]. There is no body

[Above (click to enlarge): Photomicrograph of blood particles adhering to the Shroud's linen fibres[25].]

image under the bloodstains[26], which means that the blood was on the Shroud before the image was formed on it[27]. This would be the case if the image was Jesus' and was formed by His resurrection [28]. This is another major problem for the forgery theory[§6], firstly because there is no known example of any medieval artist painting with blood[29]. And secondly the forger would have had to apply the blood first and then create the image around it[30, §7], which is the reverse of how an artist would have worked[31] and in fact all modern attempts to replicate the Shroud using blood create the image first and then apply the blood[32]. The blood clots are intact[33], not broken as they would be if the body and cloth they jointly adhered to became separated naturally[34]. This is a problem for all naturalistic theories of the formation of the Shroud's image[35].

Head. The scalp, both front and back[36], has a number of bloodstains from puncture wounds[37] corresponding to a cap of thorns[38]. These scalp bloodstains[39] and nose blood and fluid stains [40] are a perfect match of blood and fluid stains on the Sudarium of Oviedo[41] which has been in Spain since the seventh century[42] and therefore is evidence that the 13th-14th century radiocarbon date of the Shroud[43] must be wrong[44]. A blood-

[Above: The face of the Shroud showing bloodflows outlined in red (including one resembling a reversed "3") from puncture wounds in the man's scalp, corresponding to a cap of thorns. Also the bloodstains apparently in the man's hair along the sides of the face and temples were actually on the sides the face and temples of the man's body (see below): Shroudscope: Durante 2002 Vertical: Overlays: Major Bloodstains]

flow from one of the front scalp puncture wounds has trickled down the man's forehead and resembles a reversed "3"[45]. The changes of direction of this bloodflow was presumably caused by furrowing of the man's brow due to spasms of agony"[46]. These scalp puncture wound reveal an understanding to the distinction between arterial and venous blood[47], which was not known at least until 1593 when Andrea Cesalpino first proposed his theory on the circulation of blood[48]. So the medieval painting forgery theory of the Shroud's origin, championed by the late Walter McCrone[49], cannot be correct[§8]. The blood marks in the hair along the sides of the face (see above) are actually on the sides of the face and temples of the man's body[50]. That is those blood marks on the cloth are out of stereoregister with the Shroud's image of the physical face and temples upon which they were[51]. As we shall see in "10. How was the Image Formed?", this is explained by Dr. John Jackson's "Cloth Collapse Theory"[52].

Body. There are over 100 small dumbbell-shaped marks on the man's back, legs and chest[53] from him having been scourged by a Roman flagrum[54] (see "3.3. The man on the Shroud was scourged"). These are so geometrically perfect[55] that by tracing their angles back by goniometry it was found there were two scourgers, one taller than the other[56]. But since the first goniometer was not invented until 1780, this is more evidence against the medieval forgery theory[§9]. On the dorsal image, just below the tops of the right and left shoulders, there are abrasions superimposed over the scourging wounds, meaning they occurred after the scourging, which is consistent with the man carrying on his shoulders a heavy crossbeam[57]. The body has a large bloodstain on its right side[58] (left side on Enrie's positive photographs because of mirror reversal[59]) which corresponds to the thrust of a Roman lance[60] piercing the man's heart[61]. There are clear areas within the bloodstain which indicates the blood was mixed with a clear fluid[62]. This corresponds with the "blood and water" described in John 19:34 as coming out of the body of Jesus when a Roman soldiers pierced his side with a spear to ensure He was dead[63]. At the small of the man's back there is large bloodstain which is evidently pooled blood from the lance wound[64]. Most of the bloodstains on the Shroud are from blood which flowed while the man was still alive[65], but the bloodflow from the lance wound in the man's right side is post-mortem[66], i.e. it flowed onto the Shroud after the man's death[67].

Arms and hands. The images of the upper arms have largely been destroyed[68] by a fire in 1532[69] which caused molten silver from the Shroud's container[70] to drip onto a corner of the then folded in forty-eight cloth, burning a single large hole through all its layers[71]. However the forearm images were not affected and show

[Above: Arms and hands of the man on the Shroud, showing two different angled pairs of bloodstains along the forearms[72]. And also a bloodstain evidently from a nail wound in the left wrist[73], which is crossed over the right wrist[74], but a similar nail wound in the hidden right wrist can be inferred from the identical pattern of bloodstains along the right arm as along the left arm[75]. Note also the large bloodstain in the right ribcage[76] from a Roman lance[77]: Shroudscope: Durante 2002 Vertical]

bloodstains along their length[78]. The forearm bloodstains evidently came from the nail wounds in the wrists[79]. The blood has flowed along and off the forearms in two distinct angles about 10 degrees apart[80]. From this it can be deduced that the arms must have been raised at between 55 and 65 degrees from the vertical [81]. This corresponds to a crucifixion victim pushing himself up against the nail through his feet[82] to breath and then slumping down again due to the agony it produced[83] and the bloodflows from the nails in his hands following the course of gravity in each position[84].

Legs and feet. As with the man's chest and back, there are numerous small bloodstains on the man's buttocks and legs from him having been scourged by a Roman flagrum[85]. There are bloodstains around both feet[86], consistent with a large Roman nail having been driven through each of them[87]. But there is a clearer image of the right foot[88], presumably because the left foot was nailed over the right foot[89], and rigor mortis prevented the former from being laid out flat against the cloth[90]. As with the lance wound in the man's right side (see above), the bloodflow from the man's right ankle[91] (see below) is post-mortem, i.e. it flowed onto the Shroud when the man's dead body was laid upon it[92].

[Above: Dorsal (upside down) image's feet bloodstains: Shroudscope: Durante 2002 Vertical. The bloodstain lower right is a bloodflow from the wound in the man's right ankle which is post-mortem, i.e. it flowed onto the Shroud after the man's death (see above).

Since the bloodstains mostly correspond to the wounds on the Shroud, see previously "2.4. The wounds". And since the bloodstains on the Shroud correspond to the Gospel's description the suffering and death of Jesus Christ[93] they will be further considered in "3. The Bible and the Shroud."

NOTES
1. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.22-23. [return]
2. Wilson, 1979, p.23. [return]
3. Ibid. [return]
4. Ibid. [return]
5. Wilson, 1979, pp.41-42. [return]
6. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.14g. [return]
7. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.215-216. [return]
8. Ibid.return]
9. Heller, 1983, p.216. [return]
10. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, p.76. [return]
11. Ibid. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.78. [return]
14. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.76. [return]
15. Wilson, 1979, pp.34-35[return]
16. Wilson, 1979, p.36. [return]
17. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.26-27. [return]
18. Antonacci, 2000, p.27. [return]
19. Ibid. [return]
20. Wilson, 1979, pp.29-30. [return]
21. Wilson, 1979, p.30. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, p.23. [return]
23. Ibid. [return]
24. 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.88-89[return]
25. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.75. [return]
26. Wilson, 1998, p.89. [return]
27. Ibid. [return]
28. Wilson, 1979, p.251. [return]
29. Lavoie, G.R., 2000, "Resurrected: Tangible Evidence That Jesus Rose from the Dead," Thomas More: Allen TX, p.73-74. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.89. [return]
31. Ibid. [return]
32. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.29. [return]
33. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.157. [return]
34. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.157. [return]
35. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.170-171. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.36-37. [return]
37. Ibid. [return]
38. Wilson, 1979, pp.37-38. [return]
39. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, pp.30-32. [return]
40. Guscin, 1998, pp.27-29. [return]
41. Guscin, 1998, pp.26-27. [return]
42. Guscin, 1998, pp.11-18. [return]
43. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615. [return]
44. Guscin, 1998, pp.64-65. [return]
45. Wilson, 1979, p.37. [return]
46. Ibid. [return]
47. Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.99. [return]
48. Ibid. [return]
49. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, p.1. [return]
50. Lavoie, 2000, pp.114-115. [return]
51. Adler, A.D., "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Scannerini, S. & Savarino, P., eds, "The Turin Shroud: Past, Present and Future," International scientific symposium, Turin, 2-5 March 2000," Effatà: Cantalupa, 2000, pp.51,59. [return]
52. Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, pp.325-344. [return]
53. Wilson, 1979, p.37. [return]
54. Wilson, 1979, pp.47-48. [return]
55. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.20. [return]
56. Wilson, 1979, p.38 [return]
57. Wilson, 1979, pp.38-39. [return]
58. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
59. Ibid. [return]
60. Wilson, 1979, pp.48-49. [return]
61. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
62. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
63. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
64. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
65. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.24. [return]
66. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.26. [return]
67. Wilson, 1979, p.44. [return]
68. Wilson, 1998, p.23 [return]
69. Ibid. [return]
70. Wilson, 1979, p.24. [return]
71. Ibid. [return]
72. Wilson, 1979, pp.39-40. [return]
73. Wilson, 1979, p.39. [return]
74. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.165. [return]
75. Ibid. [return]
76. Wilson, 1979, p.43. [return]
77. Wilson, 1979, pp.48-49. [return]
78. Wilson, 1979, pp.39-40. [return]
79. Wilson, 1979, p.39. [return]
80. Wilson, 1979, pp.39-40. [return]
81. Wilson, 1979, p.40. [return]
82. Ibid. [return]
83. Ibid. [return]
84. Wilson, 1979, p.36. [return]
85. Wilson, 1998, pp.31-32. [return]
86. Wilson, 1979, pp.41-42. [return]
87. Tribbe, 2006, p.96. [return]
88. Wilson, 1979, p.42. [return]
89. Wilson, 1979, pp.41-42. [return]
90. Wilson, 2010, p.291 [return]
91. Wilson, 1979, pp.73-74. [return]
92. Wilson, 1979, pp.73-74. [return]
93. Wilson, 1979, p.36. [return]
§5, §6, §7, §8, §9. To be further examined under "9. Problems of the forgery theory". [return]

---

Continued in part 12, "2.6. The other marks (1)."

Last updated: 15 July, 2013.