New experiments on Shroud show it's not medieval

Thanks to commenter The Deuce for alerting me to this article. My comments are bold to distinguish them from the article.

---

VATICAN INSIDER

Tuesday 26 March 2013

New experiments on Shroud show it's not medieval

Professor Giulio Fanti and journalist Saverio Gaeta have published a

[Right: Fanti and Gaeta's new book, "Il Mistero della Sindone" ("The Mystery of the Shroud"). It is in Italian but hopefully there will be an English translation edition out soon]

book with the results of some chemical and mechanical tests which confirm that the Shroud dates back to the 1st century. This raises the question, why should carbon 14 dating be regarded as the only definitive test of the age of the Shroud? In 2005 the late Ray Rogers, employed another test of age, vanillin content, which showed that the linen of the Shroud is "between 1,300 and 3,000 years old:

"The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal. A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old. The author dismisses 1988 carbon-14 dating tests which concluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake. ... `The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic,' said Mr Rogers, who is a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, US. ... In the study, he analysed and compared the sample used in the 1988 tests with other samples from the famous cloth. In addition to the discovery of dye, microchemical tests - which use tiny quantities of materials - provided a way to date the shroud. These tests revealed the presence of a chemical called vanillin in the radiocarbon sample and in the Holland cloth, but not the rest of the shroud. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a chemical compound found in plant material such as flax. Levels of vanillin in material such as linen fall over time. ...The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibres, Dead Sea scrolls linen and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old," Mr Rogers writes. `A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.'" ("Turin shroud 'older than thought," BBC, 31 January, 2005).

Here is what Rogers wrote in Thermochimica Acta in 2004, which was published in 2005, about the Shroud being "between 1300- and 3000-years old," based on its vanillin content [see 01Dec07 & 12Feb08]:

"The fact that vanillin can not be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicates that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggests that the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years." (Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Nos 1-2, 20 January, pp.189-194, 192)

If the Shroud was 1300 years old in 2004, its linen would date from ~AD 704. If it was 3000 years old in 2004, its linen would date from ~996BC. That is a range of ~996BC to ~AD 704, or ~146BC ± 850 years. Jesus' crucifixion was in AD 30, which was ~176 years after ~146BC, and the Shroud's flax would have been harvested and its linen woven before AD30.

ANDREA TORNIELLI

New scientific experiments carried out at the University of Padua have apparently confirmed that the Shroud Turin can be dated back to the 1st century AD. So that's now two (actually four - see below) scientific tests of age which reveal the Shroud can date from the time of Christ (plus the mountain of other evidence) compared to only one test, the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud , to the contrary.

This makes its compatible with the tradition which claims that the cloth with the image of the crucified man imprinted on it is the very one Jesus' body was wrapped in when he was taken off the cross. The news will be published in a book by Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua's Engineering Faculty, and journalist Saverio Gaeta, out tomorrow. "Il Mistero della Sindone" (The Mystery of the Shroud) is edited by Rizzoli (240 pp, 18 Euro). This could be a very important discovery. Presumably the book will be translated into English in the near future.

What's new about this book are Fanti's recent findings, which are also about to be published in a specialist magazine and assessed by a scientific committee. The research includes three new tests, two chemical ones and one mechanical one. The first two were carried out with an FT-IR system, so using infra-red light, and the other using Raman spectroscopy. The third was a multi-parametric mechanical test based on five different mechanical parameters linked to the voltage of the wire. The machine used to examine the Shroud's fibres and test traction, allowed researchers to examine tiny fibres alongside about twenty samples of cloth dated between 3000 BC and 2000 AD. This is the first I have heard of these three tests. I am in the dark (pun intended) how FT-IR (presumably Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy [FTIR]) and Raman spectroscopy can reveal a fibres' age. But I can understand how a fibre could change mechanically (e.g. tensile strength ) over time.

The new tests carried out in the University of Padua labs were carried out by a number of university professors from various Italian universities and agree that the Shroud dates back to the period when Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem. Final results show that the Shroud fibres examined produced the following dates, all of which are 95% certain and centuries away from the medieval dating obtained with Carbon-14 testing in 1988: the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three dates is 33 BC ±250 years. I have just realised it is not one test but three. So, including Ray Rogers' vanillin test, that makes four scientific tests of age that say the Shroud dates from the time of Christ, versus only one (C-14 dating) which says it isn't.

The book's authors observed that the uncertainty of this date is less than the single uncertainties and the date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus' death on the cross, which historians claim occurred in 30 AD. No test of age would ever be spot-on. So it is very impressive that these three new tests span the year of Jesus' crucifixion, AD 30-33 .

The tests were carried out using tiny fibres of material extracted from the Shroud by micro-analyst Giovanni Riggi di Numana who passed away in 2008 but had participated in the 1988 research project and gave the material to Fanti through the cultural institute Fondazione 3M. It was Riggi who cut the samples from the Shroud for the 1988 radiocarbon dating. But later it was disovered that he kept back a "reserve sample" of 144 milligrams (see BSTS Newsletter #26, 1990) for himself (but probably with the knowledge of the Turin authorities). So presumably these fibres are from the same area of the Shroud as the C-14 dating was taken! Which only adds to the evidence that the C-14 laboratories' date of 1260-1390 was not only wrong but fraudulent.

© 2013 La Stampa

---

Stephen E. Jones

Posted 27 March 2013. Updated 29 September 2023.

Shroud on SBS 1 Australia at 7:30 pm tonight Sunday 24 March

Apologies for this being late, but as a reader Graeme just reminded me in a comment, Australia's SBS 1 is starting a 5-part series called "Treasures Decoded, the first of which is on the Shroud of Turin at 7:30 tonight, Sunday 24 March:

Treasures Decoded
The Turin Shroud - Discover the remarkable secrets of five of the world’s greatest treasures. Using state-of-the art forensics, experts will unlock their hidden truths for the first time ever. Controversy has raged around the world’s most disputed religious relic since it first surfaced in the 14th century. But now scientific advances have revealed mysterious writing on the Turin Shroud which could finally tell us whether it’s genuine or fake. (From the UK) (Documentary Series) (Part 1 of 5) PG CC

According to my Perth, Western Australia TV guide, it is being shown here tonight at 7:30 PM on SBS 1, so I presume the series is going to be shown in all Australian States at 7:30 PM tonight in each of their respective time zones.

My comments on the documentary, including: 1) Barbara Frales' claimed Hebrew writing on the Shroud; and the naturalistic image formation theories of 2) Luigi Garlashelli's powdered bas relief; 3) Nicholas Allen's medieval photograph and 4) Ray Rogers' Maillard reaction; are below.

Stephen E. Jones

The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (3): Dirt on foot and limestone

Here is "2.6. The other marks" (3): Dirt on foot and limestone, which is part 14 of my series, "The Shroud of Turin">The Shroud of Turin." The previous post in this series was part 13, "2.6. The other marks" (2): Poker holes." See the Contents page (part 1) for more information about this series. This page had previously been posted as part of a combined "Poker holes, dirt on foot and limestone" post, but I later expanded the `poker holes' section, which made the post too long, so I decided to separate out the "dirt on foot and limestone" part and repost it, hence this post.

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.6. THE OTHER MARKS (3): DIRT ON FOOT AND LIMESTONE
© Stephen E. Jones

As explained in a previous post, by "other marks" I mean those significant marks on the Shroud of Turin which are not wounds (see "2.4. The wounds") or bloodstains (see "2.5. The Bloodstains"). In previous "Other marks" posts I covered the "Burns and water stains" (1) and "Poker holes" (2). In this post I will cover the dirt on the man's foot and the limestone in that dirt. Again the order in which they are presented is from the most to the least obvious (not necessarily from the most to the least important).

Dirt on foot In 1978 STURP (Shroud of Turin Project) members, husband and wife Roger and Marty Gilbert, while carrying out reflectance spectroscopy on the Shroud, discovered an unusual

[Above (enlarge): bloodstains and image of the right foot, on the dorsal side of the Shroud: Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical. The heel is lower left.]

spectral signal from the heel of the right foot on the dorsal side[1] and nowhere else on the Shroud[2]. As we saw in "2.5. The bloodstains" there is a clear imprint of the right foot only and that only on the dorsal side of the Shroud[3]. When the area was examined under a microscope, dirt particles could be seen deep between the threads[4]. It is logical to find dirt on the foot of a man who wore sandals, as Jesus did (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:7; Jn 1:27)[5], and who would have been barefoot before he was crucified[6]. That the dirt is not a later contamination is shown by it being under the bloodstains on the foot[7]. But the dirt is not easily seen with the naked eye[8], so no forger would have put it there[9]. Therefore this is yet another problem for the forgery theory[§13].

Limestone In October 1978 the Shroud of Turin Project (STURP), as part of its five day intensive scientific investigation of the Shroud, took thirty-two samples[10] of surface material on the Shroud by pressing a specially formulated sticky-tape onto body image, bloodstain, waterstain and non-image areas of the cloth[11]. Los Alamos chemist, Dr. Ray Rogers, was responsible for this task[12] and so he took the sticky tape samples back with him to the USA[13]. In 1982 Rogers gave some of the sticky-tape samples to optical crystallographer Dr Joseph Kohlbeck, for him to make photomicrographs of them[14]. Kohlbeck became interested in some crystals of calcium carbonate (limestone) he found on some of the tapes [15]. Under his microscope he found from their crystalline structure that they were of the comparatively rare travertine (deposited from springs) aragonite variety of calcium carbonate rather than the more common calcite[16]. Kohlbeck knew that travertine aragonite limestone was typically found in limestone caves in Palestine[17]. The question then occurred to him whether their chemical signature might match the limestone of the tomb in which Jesus was laid in Jerusalem[18]. Kohlbeck realised that it might be difficult obtaining samples from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem but he reasoned that limestone from other tombs around Jerusalem should have the same characteristics[19].

An archaeologist, Dr Eugenia Nitowski, who had made a study of ancient Jewish tombs in Israel, was able to obtain for Kohlbeck limestone samples from a number of tombs in and around Jerusalem[20]. Kohlbeck found that that the calcium carbonate in the Jerusalem samples was of the same rare travertine aragonite variety as the samples taken from the Shroud[21].

To confirm whether the Jerusalem tombs limestone did have the same chemical signature as the Shroud samples, Kohlbeck asked Dr Ricardo Levi-Setti at the University of Chicago to compare them using the University's high-resolution scanning ion

[Above: Dr Ricardo Levi-Setti's scanning ion microprobe comparisons of Jerusalem limestone and limestone on Shroud[22]]

microprobe[23]. The Shroud sample tested was from the same foot area of the Shroud where Roger and Marty Gilbert had found the abovementioned dirt[24] because it had a larger concentration of calcium carbonate than other areas[25]. From their spectral patterns it was clear that the Shroud and Jerusalem tomb limestone samples were very close match[26]. Both the Shroud and the Jerusalem samples contained small amounts of iron and strontium, but no lead[27], and their spectral patterns were an unusually close match[28]. They would have been an even closer match but for a slight organic variation due to particles of flax which could not be separated from the Shroud's calcium[29].

While this does not absolutely prove that the aragonite limestone on the heel of the Shroud man came from a Jerusalem limestone tomb[30], it is further evidence that it did. The onus is on the Shroud sceptics to explain how limestone which specifically (if not uniquely) matches that found in and around Jerusalem came to be on the Shroud[31]. It is a major problem for the forgery theory to explain how the barely visible dirt on the heel of the Shroud man, `just happens' to contain the same rare travertine aragonite limestone found in and around Jerusalem[§14]. No medieval or earlier forger would have thought of including such details, which would have been ignored by his contemporaries because of their microscopic size[32].

NOTES
1. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.93. [return]
2. Ibid. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.42. [return]
4. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.112-113. [return]
5. Heller, 1983, p.113. [return]
6. Ibid. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.67. [return]
8. Wilson, 2010, p.66. [return]
9. Heller, 1983, p.113. [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.4. [return]
11. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.59. [return]
12. Ibid. [return]
13. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.61. [return]
14. Wilson, 1998, p.104. [return]
15. Ibid. [return]
16. Wilson, 1998, p.105. [return]
17. 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.103. [return]
18. Wilson, 1998, p.104. [return]
19. Wilson, 1998, pp.104-105. [return]
20. Wilson, 1998, p.105. [return]
21. Ibid. [return]
22. Barta, C. & Bracaglia, G., 2011, "New evidence may explain image on Shroud of Turin" by Kohlbeck and Nitowski. Biblical Archeological Review (BAR), vol 12 n. 4, 1986, pp.23-24," Holy Shroud Guild. [return]
23. Wilson, 1998, p.105. [return]
24. Ibid. [return]
25. Ibid. [return]
26. Wilson, 1998, p.106. [return]
27. Wilson, 1998, p.105. [return]
28. Ibid. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, p.106. [return]
30. Wilson, 1998, p.105. [return]
31. De Wesselow, 2012, p.115. [return]
32. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.79. [return]
§13, §14. To be further examined under "9. Problems of the forgery theory". [return]

---

Continued in part 14, "2.6. The other marks (4): Plant images"

Posted 22 March 2013. Updated 5 January 2023.

The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (2): Poker holes

Here is "2.6. The other marks" (2): Poker holes," which is part 13 of my series, "The Shroud of Turin." The series was originally titled, "The Shroud of Jesus?" but I have retitled it "The Shroud of Turin" so that my posts in this series are more easily found using a search engine. The previous post in this series was part 12, "2.6. The other marks" (1): Burns and water stains ." See the Contents page (part 1) for more information about this series.

Note: The sub-title of this post originally was "Poker holes, dirt on foot and limestone," but I have expanded the `poker holes' section following my response to Jack Markwardt's comment under it. But then the post became too long, so I have extracted the "dirt on foot and limestone" part and will re-post that separately in my next post. I have therefore reduced the sub-title of this revised post to "Poker holes" only.

---

THE SHROUD OF TURIN
2. WHAT IS THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
2.6. THE OTHER MARKS (2): POKER HOLES
© Stephen E. Jones

As explained in my previous post, by "other marks" I mean those significant marks on the Shroud of Turin which are not wounds (see "2.4. The wounds") or bloodstains (see "2.5. The Bloodstains").

`Poker holes' The so-called `poker holes' are four sets of holes on the Shroud[1]. Two of these sets are on either side of the man's buttocks on the Shroud's dorsal side of the Shroud and two sets are on either side of the crossed hands on the frontal side[2].

[Right (click to enlarge): `Poker holes' (outlined in yellow): Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical: Overlays: Poker Holes]

Each set is a group of three main holes with black edges and varying numbers of smaller, black-edged holes[3]. The edges of these holes are blacker than the fire damage of 1532[4] and a material resembling pitch has been detected around them[5]. If the Shroud is folded in four, once lengthwise and once widthwise, all four sets of holes superimpose upon one another in the centre of the folded cloth[6], in a descending degree of damage[7].

[Above): The four sets of `poker holes' on the Shroud in a clockwise descending order of damage. First (dorsal left side) top left; second (dorsal right side) top right; third (frontal right side) bottom right; and fourth (frontal left side) bottom left: Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical. Note the steep rate of reduction of hole size between the first and fourth set of holes, even though each hole would have been only about 1.3 mm above its counterpart when the theorised "red hot poker" (Wilson) or "pitch soaked firebrand" (Markwardt) was thrust through all four layers of the folded-in-four Shroud (see below).]

That the damage was deliberate and not an accident is evidenced by the holes occur in the exact dead centre of the Shroud if it is folded in four once lengthwise and once widthwise[8].

There is no record when this `poker holes' damage to the Shroud occurred, but a painted copy of the Shroud dated 1516, held in the Church of St Gommaire, Lierre, Belgium, clearly shows them[9].

[Right: Copy of Shroud dated 1516, kept in the Church of St. Gommaire, Belgium, clearly depicting the four sets of `poker holes' on the Shroud of Turin[10]]

Moreover the Pray Codex (1192-95) clearly depicts one of the L-shaped sets of holes on the Shroud[11], which means the `poker holes', and the Shroud itself, are earlier than 1192-95[12]. This is well before the earliest 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[13] and therefore (as we shall see in greater detail in "5. Art and the Shroud") is more evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is wrong[14]. It is also another problem for the forgery theory[§10] because it pushes further back the time of the claimed forgery from the already artistically backward 14th century[15].

[Left: Pray Codex (1192-95) depicting a set of L-shaped `poker holes' found on the Shroud[16].]

Various theories have been proposed to explain the origin of the `poker holes'. A Dominican scholar, Fr. Andre-M. Dubarle, theorised that the holes were caused by hot coals which dropped from a censer which was swung over the centre of the Shroud as it lay folded in quarters on an altar[17]. But that does not explain the presence of pitch around the holes.

Another theory is that of historian Ian Wilson that the Shroud was subject to a 'trial by fire' in Jerusalem in about AD 680 by a Muslim ruler, Caliph Mu'awiyah[18], which involved the Shroud having been "folded in four and deliberately run through three times with something like a red-hot poker."[19]. However, that 'trial by fire' is based on mere hearsay by St. Adamnan (c. 627–704), who was the abbot of a monastery on the Scottish Island of Iona, relating what a shipwrecked Bishop Arculf of Perigueux who had visited Jerusalem in about 677, had supposedly told him[20]. According to Adamnan, Arculf had claimed to have seen the Shroud in Jerusalem and had "learned" (but did not personally witness) that it had recently been subjected to a `trial by fire' by Jerusalem's Saracen ruler (Caliph Mu'awiyah)[21]. But Arculf told Adamnan that the Shroud he saw was "about eight feet long" and evidently bore no image[22]. Moreover, there is nothing in Arculf's account about a hot poker or firebrand being plunged into the Shroud, but rather Arculf described the Shroud as fluttering above the fire 'like a bird with outstretched wings'[23]. Wilson himself had previously concluded that what Arculf saw "could not have been the ... Shroud of Turin"[24] but was "almost certainly a so-called holy shroud of Compiegne, destroyed in the French Revolution"[25].

Yet another theory of the origin of the `poker holes' is is attorney Jack Markwardt's that "a pitch-soaked firebrand" was thrust through the folded-in-four Shroud's "dead center, four times"[26] by the Edessans during the Persian siege of Edessa in AD 544, in a desperate attempt to have God cause the siege tower to catch fire, so the siege would be lifted [27, 28] (which actually happened). Markwardt bases his "pitch-soaked firebrand" theory of the origin of the `poker holes' on the late 6th century report by the Syrian historian, Evagrius[29]. But Evagrius specifically stated that the Edessans "brought out the divinely made image not made by the hands of man ... and washed it over with water, they sprinkled some upon the timber ... [and] the timber immediately caught the flame ... and the fire spread in all directions."[30]. There is no mention of the Edessans thrusting a burning "pitch-soaked firebrand" through the Shroud. Moreover in a comment under this post, Markwardt wrote of Wilson's `trial by fire theory': "I find it hard to accept that reverent Edessan or Byzantine Christians would ever have subjected such a sacred image to a trial by fire." But by the same token it is hard to believe that the Edessa Christians would have thrust a burning "pitch-soaked firebrand" through the Shroud, especially since they would have seen Jesus' image on it. Much more plausible (albeit miraculous) is Evagrius' account where the Edessans washed the Mandylion/Shroud with water and then sprinkled some of the same water on the timber and it caught fire. That there is the Biblical precedent in 1 Kings 18:31-39 where the prophet Elijah, in his contest with the false prophets of Baal, poured water on wood on an altar and "the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the...wood," adds to the plausibility of Evagrius' account that only water was poured on the Mandylion/Shroud.

In view of the above, I now consider that the `poker holes' were not caused by "hot coals" (Dubarle), or "a red-hot poker" (Wilson), or by "a pitch-soaked firebrand" (Markwardt), but by drops of hot pitch accidentally falling on the Shroud, possibly on more than one occasion, during an early Christian ritual when the Shroud was folded in four. My reasons include:

1. More damage would be expected to a thin linen cloth, "a little heavier than shirt cloth" [31], which the Shroud is, if a red hot poker, or especially a pitch-soaked burning firebrand, was thrust through it four times.

[Above: Map of the four sets of `poker holes' in descending degree of damage[32]. The map corresponds to the Shroud being horizonal with the frontal side left and the dorsal side right.]

2. The holes would be expected to be fairly uniform in diameter if they were caused by four thrusts of the one burning firebrand or hot poker into the folded-in-four cloth in rapid succession. But the four holes in what was the topmost set, that on the Shroud's dorsal left-hand side[33], range from about 26 x 26 mm to 32 x 24 mm. All hole sizes were measured by me from a printed copy of the Shroud and multiplied by a scale factor (see comment below).

3. The area around this topmost set of holes, which unlike the other three sets, would have been directly exposed to the flame of the firebrand or radiant heat of the red hot poker, would be expected to exhibit a markedly greater degree of charring, but it doesn't.

4. The rate of progressive decline in the hole sizes is too steep for a pitch-soaked burning firebrand or red hot poker to have been the cause. The top and bottom hole sets' corresponding hole sizes are: 26 x 26 mm and 8 x 21 mm, 29 x 21 mm and 11 x 8 mm, 26 x 16 mm and 11 x 8 mm, 32 x 24 mm and 5 x 3 mm. As can be seen the largest hole on the topmost set (32 x 24 mm) is the smallest hole (5 x 3 mm) on the bottom set. But the Shroud is only "about one third of a millimetre" thick[34] which means that if a burning pitch-soaked firebrand or red hot poker was thrust through the folded-in-four cloth it would compress the four layers so that each layer would be only about a third of a millimetre below the one above it. But then there would be no appreciable progressive reduction of the size of each burn hole from its counterpart immediately above it. There seems no way that a hole created by a red hot poker or pitch-soaked firebrand, thrust through a folded-in-four thin linen cloth, would within the space of about 1.3 mm, reduce in diameter from 32 x 24 mm to 5 x 3 mm.

5. There are many smaller burn holes in the same area, indicating that drops of hot pitch had fallen on the Shroud at different times.

[Above: Topmost (dorsal left) set of `poker holes': Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical:. Note the many smaller holes, indicating that other drops of hot pitch had fallen on the same central area of the Shroud at different times, while it was folded in four the same way, presumably as part of an early Christian ceremony.]

I will be interested to hear if these problems with the "red hot poker" and "pitch soaked firebrand" theories of the origin of the `poker holes' have occurred to anyone else (pro- or anti- Shroud authenticity). For convenience I will continue to refer to them as `poker holes' but I now will think of them as hot pitch burn holes, unless someone can come up with a better explanation that fits the facts above.

NOTES
1. 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.66. [return]
2. Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
3. Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
4. Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.4. [return]
5. Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., 1982, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Reprinted from Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, No. 1, pp.3-49, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co: Amsterdam, 1982, p.47. [return]
6. Oxley, 2010, p.4. [return]
7. Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
8. Wilson, 1986, p.78. [return]
9. Wilson, 1986, p.70. [return]
10. Moretto, G., 1999, "The Shroud: A Guide," Paulist Press: Mahwah NJ, p.18. [return]
11. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.115. [return]
12. Maloney, P.C.1998, "Researching the Shroud of Turin: 1898 to the Present: A Brief Survey of Findings and Views," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, p.32. [return]
13. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615. [return]
14. De Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.183. [return]
15. Wilson, 1998, p.8. [return]
16. Berkovits, I., 1969, "Illuminated Manuscripts in Hungary, XI-XVI Centuries," Irish University Press: Shannon, Ireland, plate IV. [return]
17. Maloney, P.C., 1990, "The Current Status of Pollen Research and Prospects for the Future," ASSIST Newsletter, Vol. 2., No. 1, June, pp.5-6. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.184. [return]
19. Wilson, I. & Miller, V., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.4. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.94. [return]
21. Wilson, 1979, p.94. [return]
22. Wilson, 1979, p.94. [return]
23. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
24. Wilson, 1979, p.94. [return]
25. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.103. [return]
26. Markwardt, J., 1998, "The Fire and the Portrait," Shroud.com. [return]
27. Markwardt, 1998. [return]
28. Markwardt, J., 1999, "Antioch and the Shroud," Shroud.com. [return]
29. Markwardt, 1998. [return]
30. Evagrius, "Ecclesiastical History," in Wilson, 1979, p.137. [return]
31. Wilson & Miller, 1986, p.2. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
33. Wilson, 1998, p.66. [return]
34. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.161. [return]
§10. To be further examined under "9. Problems of the forgery theory". [return]

---

To be continued in part 14, "2.6. The other marks (3): Dirt on foot and limestone."

Last updated: 25 October, 2015.