Thursday, April 20, 2017

X-rays #22: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

We are having most of our carpet replaced with vinyl. The disruption this is causing will adversely affect my blogging and responding to comments for about a week.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!
The man on the Shroud
X-RAYS #22
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the fourth installment of part #22, "The man on the Shroud: X-rays," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "The man on the Shroud #8." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Main index #1] [Previous: No decomposition #21] [Next: Real human blood #23]


  1. The man on the Shroud #8
    1. X-rays #22

Introduction The frontal image of the man on the Shroud includes under-the-skin x-ray images of his skull[2], cheekbones[3], teeth[4], finger bones[5], hand bones[6] and spine[7]. See also 10Dec15.

[Above (enlarge)[8]: A Polarized Image Overlay[9] photograph showing the Shroud face (left) compared to an x-ray image of a human skull (right). As can be seen, the Shroud image contains teeth and skull bone structures that are beneath the man's skin, which are only seen in x-ray radiographs or other modern imaging techniques.]

The Shroud man's finger and hand bones are x-ray images Sceptics had claimed that the Shroud was a medieval forgery because the man's "hands and fingers [were] unnaturally long and spidery"[10]. However in 1984, Giles F. Carter (1930-2010), a Professor of

[Above (enlarge): Extract of a positive photograph of the Shroud showing the finger (phalanges) and the hand (metacarpals) bones beneath the skin[11] - see below.]

Chemistry at Eastern Michigan University, proposed that parts of the Shroud man's image were the result of:

"... x-rays emanating from the bones of the man in the Shroud ... absorbed by elements (e.g., sodium, silicon, phosphorus, potassium, calcium) at the surface of the body, which would then fluoresce and emit secondary x-rays of relatively long wavelength"[12].
Carter noted that the fingers in the Shroud image "are extremely long for a man of 1.73-1.78 m (5'8" - 5'10") height" and "the probability is very small that a man of this height would have such long fingers"[13]. After considering other explanations of the Shroud man's too-long fingers, Carter proposed that, "the finger images may be due at least in part to x-rays emanating from the bones in the body":
"...the finger images may be due at least in part to x-rays emanating from the bones in the body. Finger bones continue throughout much of the hand, and they could cause the fingers to look too long. In normal bodies, the ratio of the distance from the middle fingertip to the base of the finger divided by the distance from the middle fingertip to the wrist (wound area) is about 0.5. This compares with a ratio of about 0.6 for the image on the Shroud, meaning that the fingers are unusually long and the rest of the hand is grotesquely small. The probability for this to have occurred must be small"[14].
In 1992, Dr Alan Whanger, using his Polarized Image Overlay technique, was studying both positive and negative photographs of the Shroud man's hands when he realised that he was "clearly seeing the bones in the fingers and the palm of the hand (the phalanges and the metacarpals)" - see above:
"It was immediately apparent to me that I was clearly seeing the bones in the fingers and the palm of the hand (the phalanges and the metacarpals). I have had considerable clinical experience in reading x-rays, but I took a photograph of this to a professor of skeletal radiology who agreed that indeed the bones are visible. I got x-rays of my own hands in the same position as those on the Shroud, and it became readily apparent that we were seeing the knuckles and the base of the thumb on the Shroud image"[15].
Whanger's identification of "the metacarpal bones and the three phalange bones of each finger" was confirmed correct by "Michael Blunt, Challis Professor of Anatomy at the University of Sydney"[16].

The Shroud man's teeth are visible under his skin Carter tentatively identified "in the mouth area ... eight or more objects, two rows of four or six" as "teeth images":

"A second curious part of the Shroud image is the mouth area. Close inspection ... shows the presence of what appear to be eight or more objects, two rows of four or six ... Perhaps these could be teeth images ... Because the lips probably covered the teeth of the body of the Shroud, any images of teeth may indicate that x-rays have been involved in the formation of the Shroud image ..."[17].
[Above (enlarge)[18]: Extract from Shroud Scope of a close-up positive photograph of the Shroud man's mouth area. As can be seen, under the skin of the man's upper and lower lips are at least 4 pairs of upper and lower teeth with a bite line between them.]

Using his Polarized Image Overlay technique, Whanger was able to identify "teeth with their roots" and other beneath-the-skin skull bone features (see above), the "teeth images" in particular being "evidence of X-radiation from the depth of the body."[19].

To be continued in the fifth installment of this part #22 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this post. [return]
2. Carter, G.F., 1982, "Formation of the Image on the Shroud of Turin by x-Rays: A New Hypothesis," in Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., pp.425-446, 433; Whanger, M. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.117; 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.29; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.213-214; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.38; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.241. [return]
3. Carter, 1982, p.433; Wilson, 1998, p.29. [return]
4. Carter, 1982, p.433; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.117; Antonacci, 2000, p.214; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
5. Carter, 1982, p.433; Wilson, 1998, p.29; 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.151; Antonacci, 2000, p.213. [return]
6. Carter, 1982, p.433; Wilson, 1998, p.29; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.38; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
7. Carter, 1982, p.433; Antonacci, 2000, p.214. [return]
8. Prather, J., 2015, "Autoradiography - Council for Study of the Shroud of Turin," August 29; Whanger & Whanger, 1998, p.117. [return]
9. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.116-117. [return]
10. Dutton, D., 1984, "Requiem for the Shroud of Turin," Michigan Quarterly Review, 23, pp.243-55; Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the Public, and the Shroud of Turin, The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. VI, No. 3, Spring, pp.44-45, 45; Sox, H.D., 1988, "The Shroud Unmasked: Uncovering the Greatest Forgery of All Time," Lamp Press: Basingstoke UK, p.70; Schafersman, S.D., 1998, "Unraveling the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, Vol. 2. [return]
11. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
12. Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, p.42; Carter, 1982, pp.425, 433; Ruffin, 1999, p.151. [return]
13. Carter, 1982, p.430. [return]
14. Carter, 1982, p.430; Antonacci, 2000, p.213; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.36. [return]
15. Whanger, A.D., 1998, "Radiation in the Formation of the Shroud Image - The Evidence," 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, pp.184-189, 187; Oxley, 2010, p.241. [return]
16. Wilson, 1998, p.29. [return]
17. Carter, 1982, p.433. [return]
18. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Face Only Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
19. Whanger & Whanger, 1998, pp.116-117. [return]

Posted: 20 April 2017. Updated: 24 April 2017.

Wednesday, April 19, 2017

`Radiocarbon Dating ... error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material'

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

W. Pinson

This is the second and final installment of my reply in this separate post to your comment under my post, "Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory ...#6" Your words are in bold and prefaced by `greater than' brackets ">" to distinguish them from mine. It is my emphasis unless otherwise indicated.

[Above (enlarge): Photomicrograph taken by pro-authenticist STURP photographer Barrie Schwortz in 2012, of Arizona laboratory's remaining undated part of its Shroud sample[2]. As can be seen it is obviously not 60% or more contaminated with younger carbon (see below), which it would have had to have been to shift the 1st century Shroud 13-14 centuries into the future to have a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date.]

>A review of Radiocarbon Dating (Wikipedia article), there are considerations and error potential when an item is contaminated with newer material. Contamination with younger carbon which cannot be removed by pre-treatment:

"In 1532 the Shroud was being kept inside a silver casket stored in the Sainte Chapelle, Chambéry, when a fire nearly destroyed the building. The intense heat melted a corner of the casket, scorching the folded linen within, and producing the now familiar scorch marks on the Shroud. Since silver melts only at 960 degrees centigrade, the heat inside the casket must have been intense. In these circumstances moisture in the Shroud would turn to steam, probably at superheat, trapped in the folds and layers of the Shroud. Any contaminants on the cloth would be dissolved by the steam and forced not only into the weave and yarn, but also into the flax fibres' very lumen and molecular structure. ... contaminants would have become part of the chemistry of the flax fibres themselves and would be impossible to remove satisfactorily by surface actants and ultrasonic cleaning. More drastic treatments to destroy the contaminants would inevitably damage the flax fibres themselves"[3].
would have explained why the 1st-century Shroud did not have a 1st-century, but an early century (e.g. 4th-5th century[4]) radiocarbon date, if the Shroud samples had been radiocarbon-dated in 1988. But they were not and instead the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was the result of a computer hacking.

Contamination with younger carbon cannot plausibly explain why the 1st century Shroud has a 13th-14th century radiocarbon date. Because that would require a level of contamination sufficient to shift the Shroud's radiocarbon date 12-13 centuries into the future.

And to do that would require the Shroud sample to have been 60% or more contamination! That also applies to the invisible repair/patch theories. See my "Conventional explanations of the discrepancy all fail."

But that is obviously not the case with the Shroud, as such a huge level of contamination would be clearly visible, but isn't.

See the above photomicrograph, taken by pro-authenticist photographer Barrie Schwortz, of a piece of Arizona laboratory's original Shroud sample that was never dated (radiocarbon dating requires a sample to be destroyed by burning it down to its basic carbon). As can be seen, the Arizona sub-sample is not mostly contamination. Oxford estimated that their sample (which was cut from the same larger sample as Arizona's), was less than 0.1% contamination:

"... these and similar contamination arguments has been fiercely contested by Professor Edward Hall, the recently-retired director of the Oxford laboratory. He has argued:
`Calculations show that a modern contamination amounting to 65 per cent of the mass of the shroud would be necessary to give a date of 1350 to a fabric originally dating from the time of Christ ... We believe that any such contamination would have been less than 0.1 per cent'"[5].
>Since the Shroud of Turin had been in immediate contact with its backing and patches for 450 years prior to the dating in 1988, that should have been considered in the dating, but it doesn't seem to have been. The radiocarbon dating laboratories would have considered that (see the 1989 Nature paper for details of the laboratories' extensive pre-treatment of the Shroud samples to remove carbon contamination), but because the midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65 years, which was close to "the time its historic record began" i.e. c. 1355:
"Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began"[6]
they assumed that their pre-treatment cleaning must have removed all non-original carbon. They took the Shroud's 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date as confirmation that the dating must have been carried out "flawlessly":
"My main concern was that this highly public application of the AMS technique, which I had played a major role in inventing and developing, be successful. The new procedures seemed to me to be fraught with peril. If one of the three laboratories obtained an outlier result as one did in the British Museum interlaboratory comparisons it would be impossible statistically to identify it and the three measurements would all have to be included in the average thereby producing an incorrect result. The inclusion of the other laboratories would have obviated this potential risk. As it turned out my fears were not realized. The three laboratories performed their measurements flawlessly and the final result is a public triumph for AMS if not for the `true believers'. That the shroud's age is the historic one is the dullest result one could have wished for"[7].
>It is very possible, and very likely, that the Shroud is much, much older than the carbon dating, because of the affects of the much higher C14 content of the backing and patches. The evidence (apart from the radiocarbon dating) is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic and therefore first-century or earlier. However pro-authenticist arguments that rely on contamination, invisible repair patching, neutron flux, etc, all fail (see above) because they accept the 1260-1390 = 1325 ± 65 years radiocarbon date of the Shroud as correct and then try reconcile that with the Shroud’s 1st century date. But as the pro-authenticist physicist Frank Tipler pointed out, it would be a "miracle" (he believes it was!) for the 1st century Shroud to have precisely the right level of contamination to shift the Shroud’s radiocarbon date to 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years, a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355:
"This could be an explanation for the error made in 1988 on the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. What originally convinced me that the Shroud was a fake was the fact that the date obtained was precisely that expected if the Shroud were a medieval forgery. The Shroud first appeared in France in 1355, and the Arizona laboratory obtained a radiocarbon date of 1350. It seems incredible that later contamination came in exactly the right amount to give an exactly incorrect date. Unless the contamination was adjusted (by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, acting through the laws of physics) .... Unless, that is, the contamination were a miracle"[8].
But that would make God a deceiver! Few, if any, pro-authenticists would accept Tipler's deceiver-God reconciliation of the 1st century Shroud with its 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date. But that is implicit in all pro-authenticist explanations which accept the 1260-1390 = 1325 ±65 years radiocarbon date of the Shroud and then try to reconcile that to the Shroud's actual 1st century date, by contamination, invisible repairs, neutron flux, etc.

The laboratories have stated that the improbability of the Shroud being 1st century yet having a 1260-1390 a radiocarbon date is "astronomical" (Tite)[9], "one in a thousand trillion" (Gove)[10], "totally impossible" (Hall-his emphasis)[11]. But since the Shroud is authentic, and therefore 1st century or earlier, the improbability that it has a 1260-1390 a radiocarbon date must be "astronomical," "one in a thousand trillion" and indeed "totally impossible"!

The only viable explanation that fits all the facts is that the fully computerised AMS radiocarbon dating of the 1st century Shroud as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390"[12] was the result of a computer hacking! Remember:

"... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"[13]!

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this my post it came from. [return]
2. Schwortz, B.M., 2012, "New Photographs of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Samples," Shroud.com, November 21. [return]
3. Tyrer, J., in Wilson, I., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. [return]
4. Meacham, W., 2005, "The Rape of the Turin Shroud: How Christianity's Most Precious Relic was Wrongly Condemned and Violated," Lulu Press: Morrisville NC, p.87. [return]
5. Hall, E.T., 1990, "Letter to Textile Horizons, January 1990, in Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.177. [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. Gove, H.E., 1989, "Letter To The Editor: The Turin Shroud," Archaeometry, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp.235-237, 237. [return]
8. Tipler, F.J., 2007, "The Physics of Christianity," Doubleday: New York NY, pp.216-217. [return]
9. 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]
10. Gove, 1996, p.303. [return]
. 11. Currer-Briggs, N., 1995, "Shroud Mafia: The Creation of a Relic?," Book Guild: Sussex UK, pp.114-115. [return]
12. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
13. Doyle, A.C., 2001, "The Sign of Four," Penguin: London, pp.42-43. [return]

Posted: 19 April 2017. Updated: 20 April 2017.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #6

Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is the eighth and final installment of part #6, "Summary and embryonic statement of my hacker theory," in my "Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory" series. For more information about this series see part #1, "Hacking an explanation & Index." References "[A]", etc., will be to that part of my original post. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index] [Previous: Another form of fraud - computer hacking #5] [Next: My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey #7]

Summary Continuing with tracing the steps in the development of my hacker theory in my early 2014 posts: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (1)," "(2)," "(3)," and now "Summary."

The evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud of Turin is the burial sheet of Jesus Christ[2]. Yet in 1988 the Shroud was radiocarbon dated

[Right (enlarge): Prof. E. Hall (l), Dr M. Tite (c) and Dr. R. Hedges (r) announcing on 13 October 1988 that the Shroud had been radiocarbon dated to "1260- 1390!"[3].]

as "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390[4] by three radiocarbon dating laboratories at universities in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford. The midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ± 65 years[5], which `just happens' to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c. 1355[6].[A]

■ The three laboratories used the same Accelerated Mass Spectrometry (AMS) method of radiocarbon dating[7]. The results of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud were displayed on Arizona's (and presumably Zurich and Oxford) laboratory's AMS system computer, as described in this eyewitness account by Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the co-

[Left (enlarge)[8]: Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory staff in front of the AMS computer terminal after it had displayed the radiocarbon date of the Shroud which was then calibrated to "1350 AD"[9]. I did not then know about the alleged hacker, Timothy W. Linick, who is in the black shirt standing (significantly) most prominently in the foreground.]

inventor of the AMS radiocarbon dating method, of the very first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud:

"At 9:50 am 6 May 1988, Arizona time, the first of the ten measurements appeared on the screen. We all waited breathlessly. The ratio was compared with the OX sample and the radiocarbon time scale calibration was applied by Doug Donahue ... At the end of that one minute we knew the age of the Turin Shroud! The next nine numbers confirmed the first ... Based on these 10 one minute runs, with the calibration correction applied, the year the flax had been harvested that formed its linen threads was 1350 AD-the shroud was only 640 years old! It was certainly not Christ's burial cloth but dated from the time its historic record began"[10].[B]
■ Note that after only one dating run, Prof. Gove and all those present, even Prof. Donahue, a Roman Catholic who had up till then believed that the Shroud was authentic[11], accepted as fact what the computer told them, that the Shroud's "flax had been harvested ... [in] 1350 AD." But that would mean that: a) the Shroud's linen would have had to be woven and its image imprinted on the newly

[Right (enlarge): A pilgrim's badge from the Shroud's first undisputed exposition at Lirey, France in c.1355[12].]

woven linen cloth no more than 5 years before the Shroud was exhibited at Lirey, France, in c.1355; and b) the Arizona laboratory's pre-treatment of their Shroud sample would have had to be perfect, removing all traces of non-original carbon.[C]

■ Yet in 1987, when Gove learned that the number of laboratories had been reduced from 7 to 3, and the number of methods from 2 to 1, he was so worried that at least one of those three laboratories would return a wrong date, that he drafted a letter to the Pope, requesting him "not to date the Shroud at all"[13]! And in 1989, a year after the dating of the Shroud, an intercomparison test of 38 radiocarbon dating laboratories (with Oxford abstaining), found that only 7 of the 38 laboratories achieved a satisfactory result with the AMS laboratories being among the worst[14]![D]

■ Even Prof. Christopher Bronk Ramsey, the Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory and a signatory (as "C.R. Bronk") to the 1989 Nature paper, has admitted: "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests ... the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow"[15]! Just one example of this "lot of other evidence" that "the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow," is the Pray Codex which is dated 1192-95, yet it depicts at least eight unusual features which are found

[Left (enlarge)[16]: Depiction on the Pray Codex of Jesus naked, with His hands crossed awkwardly at the wrists over His pelvic region exactly as they are on the Shroud[17], about to be laid on a shroud which is more than twice the length of His body[18] [see 27May12].]

on the Shroud, including a set of L-shaped burn holes, proving beyond reasonable doubt that the artist had seen the Shroud[19]. Yet the latest date for the Pray Codex is 1195, which is 65 years before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date[20]. And the Shroud would have had to have existed long before the Pray Codex artist depicted it.[E]

■ But as Prof. Gove pointed out, the chance that the Shroud was 1st century, yet had a 1260-1390 radiocarbon date, is "about one in a thousand trillion"[21]. But since the Shroud is authentic, its actual age

[Right (enlarge)[22]: Only part of Victoria, Australia's Ninety Mile Beach. Ninety miles is ~145 kilometres. One in a thousand trillion (1012) is the probability of finding in only one try a particular grain of sand of 1 mm diameter, on this beach in a strip 145 kilometres x ~5.4 metres wide. And since the Shroud is authentic, that is also the improbability that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was correct!.]

is first century or earlier, so the odds are "one in a thousand trillion" against the radiocarbon date of 1260-1390 being correct! (See part #4).[F]

■ Agnostic but pro-authenticist art historian Thomas de Wesselow therefore regards fraud in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud as a real possibility because of the `too good to be true' 1325 ± 65 years radiocarbon date:

"The third possibility is that a fraud was perpetrated ... One important consideration weighs in favour of the possibility of deception. If the carbon-dating error was accidental, then it is a it is a remarkable coincidence that the result tallies so well with ... the Shroud's historical debut ... Had anyone wished to discredit the Shroud, '1325 ± 65 years' is precisely the sort of date they would have looked to achieve"[23].
However, Ian Wilson, who knew the leaders of the 1988 radiocarbon dating, dismissed "as absurd and far-fetched as it is unworthy" that they "may have `rigged' the radiocarbon dating"[24]. But there is another type of fraud which seems not to have occurred to anyone: that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker.[G]

■ As astronomer-turned Berkeley University computer systems administrator Clifford Stoll, revealed in his 1989 book, "The Cuckoo's Egg" [right], in the 1980s university computers were poorly secured[25]. A hacker could in the 1980s break into any university computer "without leaving any trace"[26] and some did. [H]

■ The hacker whom Stoll caught, Markus Hess, was working for the KGB in Germany and from there he hacked into university computers in the USA, and from them he gained unauthorised access to "400 U.S. military computers"[27].[I]

The KGB then had a section called "Seat 12" which conducted "a disinformation campaign of communist propaganda during the Cold War to discredit the moral authority of the Vatican"[28]. Clearly a 1st or early century radiocarbon date of the Shroud would increase the moral authority of the Vatican and Christianity in general, especially inside the Soviet Union.[J]

Embryonic statement of my hacker theory So it is not an unreasonable proposition that a KGB agent hacked into the AMS computer at

[Left (enlarge)[29]: Schematic of Arizona's AMS system in 2005, with its control console computer terminal at bottom left.]

each of the three radiocarbon dating laboratories and inserted a program which, when a Shroud test was run, replaced the Shroud's 1st (or early due to irremovable contamination[30]) century radiocarbon date, with dates which when calibrated, would yield years clustering around AD 1325, just before the Shroud's first appearance in undisputed history in c. 1355.[K]

■ I am hopeful that now it is out in the public domain, my proposal that the laboratories which dated the Shroud were duped by a computer hacker will elicit confirmation, whether from [one of the signatories to the 1989 Nature paper], an ex-KGB defector, a former university student, etc. However, in the final analysis it is not the Shroud pro-authenticists' problem to work out what went wrong with the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud. As de Wesselow points out, we can:

"... legitimately reject the carbon-dating result without determining exactly what went wrong ... Archaeologists routinely dismiss 'rogue' radiocarbon dates out of hand ... The 1988 test may therefore be declared null and void, even though, without further direct study of the Shroud, it is unlikely we will ever be able to say definitively what went wrong"[31][L]

■ PS: See further on "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey." Following Dr. Jull and Prof. Ramsey's clarification that the AMS system computer was never online at the their two laboratories (and therefore presumably also not at Zurich), the hacker, or hackers, would have had to insert a program, or modify the existing program, manually and locally in each of the three laboratories.

That makes it more likely that the KGB was involved, either directly or more likely indirectly, through local hacker recruits, like the Chaos Computer Club, of which Markus Hess was a member. However, I do not claim that the hackers were members of the Chaos Computer Club. I will develop this further in my next post [i.e. after "My replies to Dr. Timothy Jull and Prof. Christopher Ramsey" post] in this series: "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Revised."[M]

To be continued in part #7 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this my post it came from. [return]
2. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.14; Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.116-117, 141; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.86; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson: Nashville TN, p.60; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.27; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.6. [return]
3. 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.142C. [return]
4. Damon, P.E., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
5. McCrone, W.C., 1999, "Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Amherst NY, pp.1,141,178,246; Wilson, 1998, p.7. [return]
6. Wilson, 1998, p.111,278; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.222-223. [return]
7. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.178; Wilson, 1998, p.192; Wilson, 2010, p.281. [return]
8. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.176H. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, p.264. [return]
10. Ibid. [return]
11. Wilson, 1991, p.8; Gove, 1996, p.264; Wilson, 1998, pp.10, 188. [return]
12. Latendresse, M., 2012, "A Souvenir from Lirey," Sindonology.org. [return]
13. Gove, 1996, pp.218-219. [return]
14. Wilson, 1991, p.175; Wilson, 1998, p.193. [return]
15. Ramsey, C.B., 2008, "Shroud of Turin," Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Modified 17 July 2009. [return]
16. Pray Codex," Wikipedia, 12 April 2017. [return]
17. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.160; Wilson, 1991, pp.150-151; Wilson, 2010, p.183; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, pp.178-179. [return]
18. Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.104-105. [return]
19. ; Wilson, 1998, p.147; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.38; de Wesselow, 2012, p.181. [return]
20. Maloney, P.C., "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, pp.16-47, 33; de Wesselow, 2012, p.183. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.302. [return]
22. "90-Mile Beach, Gippsland, Victoria," The Grey Nomads, Travel & Holiday Information Australia, 2017. [return]
23. de Wesselow, 2012, p.170. [return]
24. Wilson, 1998, p.11. [return]
25. Stoll, C., 1989, "The Cuckoo's Egg Tracking a Spy through the Maze of Computer Espionage," Pan: London, reprinted, 1991, p.8. [return]
26. Stoll, 1989, p.9. [return]
27. "Markus Hess," Wikipedia, 22 February 2017. [return]
28. "Seat 12," Wikipedia, 22 February 2017. [return]
29. "Basic Principles of AMS," NSF-Arizona AMS Facility, University of Arizona, 2005. [return]
30. Tyrer, J., in Wilson, I., 1988, "So How Could the Carbon Dating Be Wrong?," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 20, October, pp.10-12. [return]
31. de Wesselow, 2012, pp.170-171. [return]

Posted: 11 April 2017. Updated: 17 April 2017.

Sunday, April 9, 2017

"Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, March 2017

Shroud of Turin News - March 2017
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

[Previous: February 2017, part #1] [Next: March 2017, part #2]

This is the "Editorial and Contents," part #1 of the March 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Following this editorial, I will add excerpts from Shroud-related March 2017 news articles in separate posts, linked back to this post, with the articles' words in bold to distinguish them from mine. Click on a link below to go to that article. Articles not yet linked are planned to be commented on in this issue.

Contents:
Editorial


Editorial

Rex Morgan's Shroud News: My scanning and word-processing of the 118 issues of Rex Morgan's Shroud News, provided by Ian Wilson, and emailing them to Barrie Schwortz, for him to convert to PDFs and add to his online Shroud News archive, continued in March up to issue #72, August 1992 [Right (enlarge)]. Issues in that archive are up to #66, August 1991.

Posts: In March I blogged 6 new posts (latest uppermost): "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Ninth century" - 25th; "No decomposition #21: The man on the Shroud: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" - 14th; "Another form of fraud - computer hacking: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #5" - 10th; "Odds `one in a thousand trillion' against the radiocarbon dating!: Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #4" - 9th; "My first use of the term `hacker': Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory #3" - 7th; ""Editorial and Contents," Shroud of Turin News, February 2017." - 6th

Updates updates to my posts in the background in March included: adding to my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Seventh century":

"614. The Sudarium of Oviedo, the `face cloth' or "napkin" in John 20:7, leaves Jerusalem in its chest (the present day Arca Santa) ahead of an impending invasion by the Persian king Khosrow II (r. 590-628)."

Comments: In March I received an anonymous comment under my "Another form of fraud - computer hacking ..." post:

"If the computers were hacked then the scientists who did the testing must have discovered this soon afterwards. How do you explain than none of them ever talked about this? I am also not aware of any of the three laboratories requesting to test the unused sample."
See my reply below it, which is too long to post here.

My radiocarbon dating hacker theory: As can be seen above, in March I blogged 3 posts in my new series, "Steps in the development of my radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud hacker theory": "My first use of the term `hacker'... #3"; "Odds `one in a thousand trillion' against the radiocarbon dating! ... #4" and "Another form of fraud - computer hacking ... #5".

Pageviews: At midnight on 31 March, Google Analytics [below enlarge] gave this blog's "Pageviews all time history" as 718,747. This compares with 515,212 (up 203,535 or 39%) in my March 2016 Editorial. It also gave the most viewed posts for the month (latest uppermost) as: "Superficial #18: The man on the Shroud ... ," Nov 11, 2016 - 153; "`Editorial and Contents,' Shroud of ..., February 2017," Mar 6, 2017 - 144; "Fraud a real possibility: Steps in the ...," Feb 21, 2017 - 127; "Did you ask radiocarbon dating experts ...," Nov 3, 2016 - 123; and "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Ninth century," Mar 25, 2017 - 111.

Again it is encouraging to me to see my posts about my hacker theory being among the most read, month after month!


Notes:
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to extract or quote from any part of it (but not the whole post), provided the extract or quote includes a reference citing my name, its title, its date, and a hyperlink back to this my post it came from. [return]

Posted: 3 April 2017. Updated: 199 April 2017.

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Ninth century

Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 to the present
NINTH CENTURY
© Stephen E. Jones
[1]

This is the fifteenth and final installment of part #9, "Ninth century," of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. For more information about this series see part #1, "First century" and index. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 8th century #8] [Next: 10th century #10]


9th century (801-900)

[Above (enlarge)[2]: Extract from folio 43v of the 9th century (c. 820) Stuttgart Psalter, presumably painted by a Byzantine artist during the Carolingian period (780-900), in the Aachen, Germany capital of Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne (r. 800–814). Jesus is depicted uniquely fully naked from the back, being scourged with realistic bleeding scourge marks, realistically by two scourgers (as was discovered in the 20th century using the modern science of goniometry)[15Juy13], wielding two realistic three-thonged Roman flagrums (see "c. 820" below). The unknown 9th century artist must therefore have seen either the full-length Shroud, which was then in Edessa [see "544"], or an accurate copy of it. If so, this would refute that part of Ian Wilson's theory that only after the Image of Edessa was taken from Edessa to Constantinople in 944, [see future "944"], was it discovered that behind the face of Jesus was the full-length Shroud, "doubled in four" = tetradiplon (again see "c. 820" below).]

812 King Alfonso II of Asturias (c. 760–842), built a chapel in his capital Oviedo, which was later incorporated into Oviedo Cathedral. In

[Above (enlarge)[3]: The 9th century chapel built by King Alfonso II, within which was the Holy Chamber (Cámara Santa) that held the Holy Chest (Arca Santa), which in turn contained the "face cloth [Gk soudarion], which had been on Jesus' head" (Jn 20:7) [see "30"], later known as the "Sudarium of Oviedo," and other relics (see below). See also 25May16]

that chapel was a Cámara Santa (Holy Chamber), to hold the Arca

[Above (enlarge): "The Camara Santa, or Holy Chamber, within the chapel built in 812 by King Alfonso II, to hold the Holy Chest (see below) which contained the Sudarium of Oviedo and other relics[4]. The chest can be seen past the metal bars in the centre background.]

Santa (Holy Chest) which contained the Sudarium of Oviedo and other

[Above (enlarge)[5]: The Holy Chest (or Arca Santa) in which the Sudarium of Oviedo was taken from Jerusalem in 614[6] [see "614"].

relics, that had been in the nearby Monastery of San Vicente since 761 [see "761"][7].

814 A second iconoclast period (814-842) (see ["723"] for the first) began early in the reign of Byzantine Emperor Leo V the Armenian (r. 813-820)[8]. However:

"Leo V ... was much milder in his enforcement of the ban than had been some of his predecessors and the attack was not so much on icons in general as upon some of the uses of them, especially in worship in private houses. The veneration of icons seems to have continued outside the capital, especially in Greece, the islands, and much of Asia Minor."[9]
The Patriarch of Constantinople (equivalent to Archbishop), Nicephorus I (r.806-815) was an early opponent of Leo V's

[Right (original): Extract of illuminated margin of mid-ninth century Chludov Psalter, depicting Nicephorus I upholding an icon and trampling John VII of Constantinople[10], who is lying on the ground with coins[11] (Judas' 30 pieces of silver?).]

iconoclasm but he died in 815[12]. A former painter of icons, the very learned John VII (nicknamed "Grammatikos"), had by 814 become an iconoclast and was later appointed Patriarch John VII of Constantinople (r.837-843) by Emperor Theophilos (r. 829-842)[13]. That the Image of Edessa/Shroud was, as in the first Iconoclastic Period [see "723"], cited as a major argument against the banning of images, is evident from Wikipedia's (garbled) summary of iconodule arguments:

"Much was made of acheiropoieta, icons believed to be of divine origin ... Christ [was] ... believed in strong traditions to have sat ... for [his] ... portrait .. to be painted"[sic][14]!
For the end of the second iconoclastic period see future ["842] below.

c. 820 Stuttgart Psalter On 20 October 2013, a Max Patrick Hamon (presumably this cryptologist) guest-posted on Dan Porter's now closed Shroud of Turin blog a post titled, "An Intriguing 9th Century Image Suggestive of the Shroud – A Guest Posting by Max Patrick Hamon".

[Above (enlarge): "The flogging of Christ, Carolingian iconography, early 9th c. CE, Stuttgart Psalter, fol. 43v, Wurttenmbergische Landesbibliothek, Germany": Max Patrick Hamon.]

Hamon asked the question: "Does the Turin Shroud predate more than half-a-millennium at least the radiocarbon date (1325±65 CE)?" and then he answered his own question (my summary with minor changes):

"A Shroud-like dorsal image of Christ? In 1998-2000, Pr. Heinrich Pfeiffer was the first to draw attention to the ca 800-814 CE Stuttgart Psalter miniature-Turin Shroud dorsal image connection. In a passing comment he just wrote: "... The numerous small wounds resulting from the flogging [on the Shroud] are already to be found ... in a representation of the flogging of Jesus in the Stuttgart Psalter of the early 9th century. The ... miniature clearly shows the whole dorsal image of the Shroud ..."

Could the ca. 800-814 CE Stuttgart Psalter stark naked flogged Christ back view really predate the carbon 14 dating result of 1325 ± 65 calendar years by no less than 510-515 years; more than half a millennium?

... Re the Stuttgart Psalter miniature of the Flogging of Christ-Turin Shroud (TS hereafter) man's dorsal image connection, to the astute observer [Below right (enlarge)]:

● Both men are stark naked with long flow of hair in the back ...
● Both have arm(s) bound/crossed in front ...
● Both have bloodied furrows/scourged marks in conjunction with two whips with lashes each
fitted with doubled (metal) pellets implying two executioners.
● Both have almost feminine curved left hip & thigh (to be called later “the Byzantine curve”)[05Feb14, 11May14].
● Both are/were tied at tibiofibular level with left leg in front of right leg (TS man accurate
Forensic description: left leg in front of right leg with rope-mark in the tibiofibular fleshes).
● Both show a most unnatural/awkward feet position.
● And last but not least, by means of a very curious tailed-Epsilon hand sign each time, the executioner on the left seem to point with his left hand index finger to his own head while the executioner on the right does point to Christ's head with his left hand index finger too. Both left hand signs cryptically echo the tailed-Epsilon-shaped like small blood rivulet we can observe on TS man's forehead, just above his left eyebrow.

All these pieces of evidence piled up into a crucial evidence: the bloodied body burial cloth now kept in Turin was already in existence early in the 9th CE. The Stuttgart Psalter miniature Shroudlike Christ does predate the radiocarbon date by no less than half-a-millennium."

On 21 October 2013, in my post "A 9th century depiction of Christ being scourged naked from behind with the scourgers' fingers in the shape of the reversed 3 bloodstain on the Shroud!," based on Hamon's above post, I made the following points (summarised):
● "Christ is depicted naked from the back, with realistic, bleeding scourge marks, something that is very rare, if not non-existent, in the Middle Ages ..."
● "... the artist accurately depicted a Roman flagrum, of the three-thonged, lead ball tipped, type which made the marks on the Shroud." [Left (enlarge)]
● "... the artist depicted two scourgers, which is not mentioned in the Gospels, but which can be deduced from the pattern of scourge marks on the Shroud" [15Juy13]
● "Jesus' feet are at an angle (as the man on the Shroud's appear to be)"
● "Jesus' hands would have been crossed in front of him (his right arm is not visible) at about his groin area as on the Shroud"
● "Jesus has long hair (as has the man on the Shroud)"
● "... as pointed out by Hamon, the unnaturally long and strangely configured fingers on the free hand of the scourger on the right, is in the shape of the epsilon (or reversed 3) bloodstain on the Shroud man's forehead! ...

[Above (enlarge): "... the fingers of the scourger on the left of Jesus on the Stuttgart Psalter (left) [see above]; the reversed 3 bloodstain on the Shroud horizontally flipped (centre); and the fingers of the scourger on the right of Jesus on the Stuttgart Psalter (right). As can be seen there is a close match between the shape of reversed 3 bloodstain on the Shroud and the fingers of the scourger on the right."]

[and] if that bloodstain photo is flipped horizontally (because the scourgers' fingers are at the back of Jesus but the reversed 3 bloodstain is at the man on the Shroud's front), it then has the same basic shape as the scourger's fingers!"
● "Additional evidence that the artist intended to depict the Shroud's reversed 3 bloodstain in the shape of the scourger on the right's fingers is that he is pointing to Jesus' head and the scourger on the left is pointing to his own head, but there would seem to be no other reason why they would be doing this during a scourging. Also the scourger on the right has no thumb visible on his free hand, when it should normally have been visible, but then that would have detracted from the hand's match with the Shroud's reversed 3 bloodstain."

As mentioned above, it is part of Ian Wilson's overall Jerusalem → Edessa → Constantinople theory that it was only after 944, when the Image of Edessa/Mandylion/Shroud had been taken from Edessa to Constantinople, it was discovered that behind the face of Jesus in landscape aspect was the "doubled-in-four" (Gk. tetradiplon), full-length, front and back, double image of Jesus imprinted on his burial Shroud:
"All this makes all the more intriguing the evidence that someone, sometime after the Mandylion's arrival in Constantinople [on "August 15, 944"], seems to have undone the gold trelliswork covering the cloth, untwined the fringe from the surrounding nails, carefully unfolded the cloth, and, for the first time since the days of the apostles, set eyes on the concealed full-length figure. Frustratingly, this is another of those moments in the Mandylion's history that has gone unrecorded, yet is crucial to it. It is attested as a real happening from an impressive array of circumstantial evidence"[15].
So on the same day, 21 October 2013, I emailed Ian Wilson (cc. Barrie Schwortz), drawing their attention to Hamon's post on Porter's blog:
"Re: A major discovery of a depiction of Christ being scourged naked from behind in the Stuttgart Psalter (820-830) and the two scourgers' fingers pointing to Christ's head are unnaturally in the shape of a reversed 3! ... A commenter on Dan Porter's "Shroud of Turin Blog" has posted, "An Intriguing 9th Century Image Suggestive of the Shroud – A Guest Posting by Max Patrick Hamon," regarding a 9th century depiction in the Stuttgart Psalter (820-830) of Christ being scourged naked, back facing, and the two scourgers' fingers pointing to Christ's head are unnaturally curved in the shape of an epsilon or reversed 3 (see attached images). I think this is a genuine major Shroud discovery, which according to your chronology Ian, pre-dates the Shroud being taken from Edessa to Constantinople in 944 and what's more shows that the Shroud had been seen full-length before 944 and allowed to be copied. I will be interested in your comments on this ..."[16]
The next day, 22 October 2013, both Schwortz and Wilson replied. Schwortz wrote that he found the `finger' issue to be rather dubious" and that he was "anxious to hear what Ian has to say"[17], ignoring what else I wrote about this being "a 9th century depiction ... of Christ being scourged naked ..."

Ian Wilson's reply was more comprehensive:

"... I certainly wouldn't scoff at the possible significance of this Stuttgart Psalter miniature. It's the first time that I have come across this image, and although like Barrie I'm very doubtful regarding the scourgers' fingers suggestion, I certainly wouldn't reject outright the idea that such a strikingly `dorsal' image may in some as yet undetermined way have been influenced by the Shroud. There's a useful website with a lot more of the images from the same Psalter, and so some careful further study is possible, and certainly called for. So I'll be sure to give it some further consideration when I can. As my 2010 book made clear (pp.147-8), I now support the idea that the Shroud was very likely brought out in full length form for the late seventh century Mu'awiyah `trial by fire' incident, so the dorsal image would have been viewable prior to the Stuttgart Psalter's creation. If there is to be another BSTS Newsletter, then I would certainly pitch for this intriguing news being included"[18].
But as can be seen above, like Schwortz, Wilson was "very doubtful regarding the scourgers' fingers suggestion," without giving any reason why. And Wilson was strangely guarded in his negative convoluted wording, "I certainly wouldn't reject outright the idea that such a strikingly `dorsal' image may in some as yet undetermined way have been influenced by the Shroud." As for Wilson's "late seventh century Mu'awiyah `trial by fire' incident" as an explanation of why "the dorsal image would have been viewable prior to the Stuttgart Psalter's creation," as we shall see below in my critique of Wilson's subsequent BSTS Newsletter article, this involves multiple implausibilities!

The following is my critique of Wilson's article, "The Stuttgart Psalter 'Discovery' - An exaggerated claim - Research article," BSTS Newsletter, No. 78, December 2013. Wilson's words are in bold to distinguish them from mine. First, it is disappointing to see Wilson, in an evident attempt to protect that part of his theory (which is not even essential to it), downplay as a 'Discovery' in quotes and "exaggerated," this very significant depiction in the early ninth century, of Jesus, completely naked (uniquely that early) being realistically scourged by two scourgers, who are wielding historically

[Above (enlarge): Close-up of the left scourger's, three-thonged, metal ball tipped, Roman flagrum in folio 43v of the 9th century (c. 820) Stuttgart Psalter. Compare its historical accuracy with the flagrum above which is a copy of one excavated from the 18th century the Roman city of Herculaneum which had been buried in the AD 79 eruption of Mt Vesuvius.]

accurate three-thonged, metal ball-tipped, Roman flagrums, causing realistic scourge marks on Jesus' back and legs.

"... a few weeks ago my fellow Australian Stephen Jones kindly drew my attention to an article by Max Patrick Hamon that had appeared on the Dan Porter 'Shroud Story' website. The article in question can be accessed at https://shroudstory.com/2013/10/20/an-intriguing-9th-century-image-suggestive-of-the-shroud-a-guest-posting-by-max-patrick-hamon/ [link corrected]" ... Hamon has stirred up quite a lot of Internet fuss over an illumination in a ninth century Carolingian manuscript that Professor Heinrich Pfeiffer first suggested several years ago might have a Shroud connection." Pfeiffer did more than than merely "suggest ... [it] might have a Shroud connection." See above where Pfeiffer wrote:

"... The numerous small wounds resulting from the flogging are already to be found ... in a representation of the flogging of Jesus in the Stuttgart Psalter of the early 9th century. The ... miniature clearly shows the whole dorsal image of the Shroud ..."
"The illumination in question (p. 25), on Folio 43 verso in the so-called Stuttgart Psalter preserved in the Württemberg State Library, Stuttgart, depicts the scourging of Jesus, as an illustration of the prophetic text of the Vulgate Bible's Psalm 34/35*, v.15 "et adversum me laetati sunt et convenerunt congregata sunt super me flagella et ignoravi." Dateable to between 820 and 830, this illumination is so graphic in its depiction of Jesus' scourge marks, also so emphatically 'dorsal' in its depiction of the fully naked back of Jesus' body receiving this flagellation, that it is certainly not unreasonable to suggest" Again Wilson strangely employs convoluted negative wording. Why does Wilson not then simply say, as Pfeiffer did, words to the effect that this "Stuttgart Psalter of the early 9th century ... clearly shows the whole dorsal image of the Shroud ..."?

"that it could derive from some Carolingian artist/monk's third or fourth hand knowledge of the scourge marks on Shroud image." Again, why does Wilson, with no evidence, downplay this as "third or fourth hand knowledge of the scourge marks on Shroud image"? That the artist's style is cartoon-like does not mean that he was not a first-hand viewer of the full-length Shroud. That the 11th century Pray codex's depiction of Jesus' image on the full-length Shroud is largely "symbolical"[19] and the artwork is "crude"[20], does not mean that the artist was not a first-hand viewer of the Shroud[21], which Wilson himself maintains[22]. And, after all, the production of such Carolingian art included "a number of Byzantine artists who appear to have been resident in Carolingian centres":

"Carolingian art comes from the Frankish Empire in the period of roughly 120 years from about 780 to 900 — during the reign of Charlemagne and his immediate heirs — popularly known as the Carolingian Renaissance. The art was produced by and for the court circle and a group of important monasteries under Imperial patronage; survivals from outside this charmed circle show a considerable drop in quality of workmanship and sophistication of design. The art was produced in several centres in what are now France, Germany, Austria, northern Italy and the Low Countries, and received considerable influence, via continental mission centres, from the Insular art of the British Isles, as well as a number of Byzantine artists who appear to have been resident in Carolingian centres"[23]
As we saw above, Wilson has his own explanation of how "the dorsal image would have been viewable prior to the Stuttgart Psalter's creation," which in downplaying Hamon's discovery, Wilson is evidently trying to protect:

"In chapter 11 of my most recent (2010) book on the Shroud I discussed the likelihood that it was our Shroud, temporarily brought to Jerusalem after an earthquake had devastated Edessa's Hagia Sophia cathedral on Easter Sunday 679, which received the 'trial by fire' on a sudarium of Jesus ordered at around that time by the Muslim Caliph Mu'awiyah, as described by direct eyewitness French bishop Arculf to Abbot Adamnan of Iona." This involves multiple implausibilities:

● That because of an earthquake which severely damaged Edessa's Hagia Sophia cathedral, where the Image of Edessa/Shroud was presumably kept, instead of finding a safer place in Edessa (e.g. in one of Edessa's many churches[24]), Edessa's custodians of the Image would not only send their palladium (guarantee of their city's divine protection)[25] outside their city, but would sent it ~974 km (~605 miles) to Jerusalem[26] where it would be out of their control and they would be unable to ensure that it would ever return to Edessa. Wilson's own documentation of the great reluctance of the Edessans to allow the Image to be taken to Constantinople in 944[27], should alone have caused him to reject this part of his theory.

● If this "sudarium" which Arculf saw in Jerusalem was the Image of Edessa/Shroud which had been sent there for safety, then by Wilson's own account it would have been far safer in Edessa than in Jerusalem where, at the whim of a Muslim Caliph, it could be subject to a "trial by fire," which involved making the cloth `fly' over a "great fire ... like a bird with outstretched wings"[28]!

Other implausibilities not mentioned by Ian Wilson in his BSTS Newsletter article above, include:

● Wilson admits in his 2010 book The Shroud but failed to disclose in his article that the "sudarium" described by Arculf was only 8 feet (~2.4 m) long, not the over 14 feet (~4.4 m) long Shroud[29]. It could not have been the Shroud folded "doubled" as Wilson proposed in his 2010 book[30] because Arculf described "the sudarium ... as fluttering above the fire 'like a bird with outstretched wings'"[31], during which it would have unfolded and been apparent that it had been doubled. Also, Arculf had kissed the cloth afterwards, which Wilson had mentioned in a previous book[32] but not his 2010 book, nor in his article, and up that close Arculf could not have failed to notice it was about twice 8 feet long.

● Besides, the "trial by fire" that Wilson is trying to make this Arculf account fit is that which explains the four sets of L-shaped `poker holes' on the Shroud[33]. But that would have required the Shroud to have been folded not "double" but quadruple: "folded in half down its length and half across its width"[34]. And there is nothing in Arculf's account about "thrusting through the cloth three times [with] something like a sputtering pitch-soaked red-hot poker"[35], which would have been needed to make the `poker holes' on the Shroud.

● As Wilson also admitted in his book, but failed to disclose in his article, Arculf said nothing about this "sudarium" bearing an image[36], and as Wilson said in an earlier book, "he would undoubtedly have mentioned" it if it had one[37].

● There is an `Official History' of the Image of Edessa (Narratio de Imagine Edessena)[38], written in Constantinople in 945, shortly after the Image of Edessa/Shroud arrived in that city[39]. An English translation of the `Official History' is Appendix C, pages 272-290 of Wilson's 1979 book The Shroud of Turin), but there is is no record in it of the Image of Edessa having been sent to Jerusalem (or anywhere) between the first mention of it at Edessa in repelling the Persian siege of 544 (pp. 282-285) and then the Image being taken to Constantinople in 944 (pp. 285-288). But if the Image/Shroud had been sent to Jerusalem in c.679 and had triumphed in a `trial by fire' over a Muslim Caliph, who then returned it to Edessa, that surely would have been recorded. That it wasn't means it didn't!

● In fact, Arculf is quoted by Wilson in his 2010 book as claiming that this cloth was "the sudarium of Our Lord which was placed over his head in the tomb"[40]. That is, the "face cloth" [soudarion of Jn 20:7, not the "shroud" [sindon] of (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53), which was placed over Jesus' entire body! So this may have been the Sudarium of Oviedo which was in Jerusalem up to 614 (see above and "614"]). This would explain why Arculf did not see any image on this "sudarium". However, the Sudarium of Oviedo is only ~2.8 feet long (85.5 x 52.6 cm or ~34 x ~21 inches)[41], so Arculf would have had to have been very wrong in his length estimate, or his translator, Abbot Adamnan of Iona, misunderstood him, for this to have been the Oviedo "sudarium".

In his previous books, for the above reasons, Wilson had concluded that the "sudarium" seen by Arculf in Jerusalem was not the Shroud, but was probably the "shroud of Compiegne," a gift to Charlemagne about 797, which was destroyed in the French Revolution"[42]. In his 2010 book, but not in his article, Wilson frankly admits that it "...remains highly speculative that the sudarium of Christ that Arculf saw in Jerusalem and the Image of Edessa, alias our Turin Shroud, were one and the same object"![43]. So Ian Wilson, by his own admission, has no viable alternative explanation of how this c.820 Stuttgart Psalter has such a realistic depiction of Jesus being scourged fully naked!

"So given that our Shroud had been viewed at full length by at least one western observer at the end of the seventh century," See above that this involves multiple implausibilities which together amount to an effective impossibility. And that even Wilson regards it as "...highly speculative that the sudarium of Christ that Arculf saw in Jerusalem and the Image of Edessa, alias our Turin Shroud, were one and the same object"!

"for there to appear in a manuscript of the early ninth century an image distantly based on that experience," This is sloppy thinking by Wilson in what he claims is a "research article! Even if the "sudarium" that Arculf saw in Jerusalem c.680 was the Shroud (and the evidence above is that it wasn't) it does not follow that this c.820 Stuttgart Psalter depiction of Jesus being scourged naked was based on it. For one thing, Arculf never mentioned an image on the cloth, let alone that it was of Jesus naked and bleeding from being scourged, which Wilson himself had admitted (as we saw above) Arculf would "undoubtedly have mentioned it" if there was one. For another, Wilson would have to show a plausible causal pathway from Arculf's account in Abbot Adamnan's De Locis Sanctis, to this c.820 full-length depiction of Jesus in the Stuttgart Psalter. While "Adomnán's De locis sanctis was recopied and widely read all over western Europe"[44], there is nothing in it that would have led an artist to depict Jesus being scourged naked in the Stuttgart Psalter. And if Arculf could have seen the full-length Shroud in Jerusalem (but see above the evidence that he didn't), so could have the artist who painted the image of a naked, scourged Jesus in the Stuttgart Psalter have seen the full-length Shroud in Edessa!

"even though not exactly headline-grabbing, is not totally beyond the bounds of possibility." This mere rhetoric by Wilson is both false and fallacious. It is false, because what Hamon wrote in Porter's blog was not in any way "headline-grabbing." And it is fallacious in that anything that is not logically impossible is "not totally beyond the bounds of possibility," But (as we saw above) the multiple implausibilities of Wilson's claim that Arculf saw the full-length Shroud in Jerusalem in c.680 render it effectively impossible!

"But where, in my view, Max Patrick Hamon goes way 'over the top' -thereby doing disservice to the scrupulous evidential approach that the subject of the Shroud so badly needs from its proponents" As a Christian Wilson needs to heed Jesus' warning to "first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Mt 7:3-5; Lk 6:41-42). As we saw above Wilson's own claim that the "sudarium" that Arculf saw in Jerusalem in c.680 was the full-length Shroud is hardly a model of "the scrupulous evidential approach that the subject of the Shroud." Indeed, as we saw, Wilson himself regards it as "highly speculative!

"-is with regard to his claim that the exaggeratedly expressive hand of the man seen on the right wielding his scourge is a cryptic rendition of the shape of the 'epsilon-shaped blood rivulet over the eyebrow' as seen on the Shroud's frontal image." Wilson simply ignores the totality of the evidence that Hamon posted (see above) of which the "tailed-Epsilon hand sign" which "echo ... the tailed-Epsilon-shaped like small blood rivulet we can observe on TS man's forehead," was but one part. Instead of criticising Hamon, Wilson should have congratulated him for making a major Shroud discovery, as I did in a comment under Hamon's post on Porter's blog:

"I don't normally comment on Dan's blog, or even read the comments under his posts, but I must make an exception congratulate Max on his major discovery of this very realistic 9th century (820-830) depiction of Christ being scourged naked from behind, and particularly his noticing that the two scourgers' fingers pointing to Christ's head are unnaturally curved resembling the epsilon or reversed 3 bloodstain on the forehead of the man on the Shroud. This is more evidence that the Shroud was in existence and seen in its full length in the 9th century. According to Ian Wilson's chronology that would be even before the Shroud was taken from Edessa to Constantinople in 944. I have therefore taken the liberty of drawing Max's discovery to the attention of Ian Wilson and Barrie Schwortz. I will also take the liberty of commenting on Max's discovery on my blog. Again my congratulations to Max on his major discovery and also my thanks to Dan for posting it." (October 20, 2013 at 11:29 pm)

"Obviously if this argument could be sustained it would represent strong evidence for the Shroud's existence back around 820-30." Ignoring for the present (see next) Hamon's "tailed-Epsilon hand sign" argument, the rest of his argument self-evidently can be sustained and so it does, "represent strong evidence for the Shroud's existence back around 820-30"! Wilson's claim that this depiction on the Stuttgart Psalter of Jesus naked and bleeding from being scourged realistically is explained by "our Shroud had been viewed at full length by at least one western observer [Arculf] at the end of the seventh century" is self-evidently false and (as we saw) Wilson himself doesn't believe it!

"And if all the other hands depicted in the Stuttgart Psalter were of regular size and shape, the Fol. 43v illumination thereby being a single, striking exception to the rest, then there might be some serious justification for Hamon's argument." Wilson is here setting up a "strawman":

"... an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent"[45].
There is no requirement, nor claim, by Hamon or me, that "all the other hands depicted in the Stuttgart Psalter" are "of regular size and shape" nor that "the Fol. 43v illumination" is "a single, striking exception to the rest." Since Hamon had already shown in his first six lines of evidence (see above) that the Fol. 34v illumination of the Stuttgart Psalter was based on the Shroud, before we even get to his seventh "tailed-Epsilon hand sign" evidence; and Wilson's Arculf alternative fails (see above); it would not be surprising if the same artist drew hands of a similar style throughout the Psalter, and on that basic hand style superimposed the shape of the epsilon/reversed `3' bloodstain on the Shroud, pointing to other individuals throughout the Psalter.

"But it is a very simple matter for anyone to consult the entirety of other folios from the Stuttgart Psalter via the link: "http://digital.wlb-stuttgart.de/sammlungen/sammlungsliste/werksansicht/?id=6&tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=1343&tx_dlf%5Bpage%5D=90 [link corrected] "And as immediately becomes evident, exaggerated or caricature-like hands are effectively a very common motif for this particular monk illuminator. Even on the very next folio, illustrating the 21st verse of the same Psalm 34/35* (below), there appears a similar example, and there are plenty more to be found elsewhere." Having set up his "strawman" caricature of Hamon's argument it is no surprise that Wilson can easily knock it down! A "daveb of wellington nz," in a comment under a later Porter post about Wilson's "BSTS Newsletter article," titled "Ian Wilson Responds to a Posting in This Blog," January 30, 2014, responded:

"While agreeing with Ian Wilson that this particular monk illuminator often seems to make caricatures of hands a common motif in the illustrations of the Psalter, I am sympathetic to Max's perspective. Hand signals were a very common and accepted means of silent communication throughout the ancient world. Nor through scanning quickly through the Psalter did I come across another specific instance of the epsilon sign. It may well be that the other various hand signs shown also have their own particular significance which is now unknown to us" (January 30, 2014 at 8:37 pm).
I myself have started going through the online Stuttgart Psalter, starting from Fol. 1v, and like "daveb," although I have found hands of a similar basic style to those on Fol. 43v (which is not surprising since it is the same artist-see above), I have yet to find another hand that is the same as that folio's "tailed-Epsilon hand sign." But even if I do, it would be readily explained by the artist intending the blood trickle on Jesus' forehead to apply to that individual in the same sense that it applied to the two scourgers (e.g. "His blood be on us ...!" - Mt 27:25). However it is time-consuming, so I will report my findings here as a later update and notify readers of it in a subsequent "Editorial and Comments" in my Shroud of Turin News.

"So I am sorry, but much as I would like to be able to endorse Max Patrick Hamon's argument, it doesn't get any support from me..." Since this is major Shroud discovery of Hamon's (see above) it is Wilson's loss that he doesn't support it. In a comment under Porter's above 2014 post, Hamon (who evidently is this cryptologist) responded:

"... is Ian Wilson's disclaiming gospel Truth? Is he a Carolingian or medieval Art Historian? Is he familiar with Benedictine cryptography applied to Art works? ... Can Wilson ... tell me the real meaning then of such a hand gesture? ... can Wilson ... correctly discriminate between a natural similar hand gesture, a symbolic similar hand gesture and an encoded/cryptic symbolic similar hand gesture? ... done with the right or the left hand?" ... if there are that many examples of this same (unnatural) LEFT hand gesture made with a telescopic index finger pointing at the head of Christ in the whole Carolingian and Medieval iconographic corpus besides the Stuggart Psalter, can Wilson ... show them to me?" (January 30, 2014 at 6:23 pm).
842 The second iconoclast period ended with the death of Emperor Theophilos in 842 and his two year-old son Michael III (r.842-867) succeeding him[46]. During Michael III's minority the Empire was governed by his mother, the Empress Theodora (r.842-855) [47], as his regent[48]. Theodora was an iconodule[49] and in 843 she reintroduced the minting of coins bearing the face of Christ, with Shroud-like features[50]. Also, through her influential minister

[Above (enlarge)[51]: Solidus coin issued by Empress Theodora in 843, showing on the obverse (left) the face of Christ with Shroud-like "Vignon markings" features[52] and on the reverse (right) Michael III and Theodora, indicating her regency during her son's minority.]

Theoktistos (r. 842-855)[53], Theodora deposed the iconoclast Patriarch John VII of Constantinople (see above) and replaced him with the iconodule Patriarch Methodius I of Constantinople (r. 843-847)[54]. That and an 842 edict, "The Restitution of Images"[55] brought to an end the the second period of Byzantine iconoclasm[56].

To be continued in the next part #10 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date, and a hyperlink back to this page[return].
2. "Jesus being scourged," Württembergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart (Wurttemberg State Library, Stuttgart), Stuttgart Psalter - Cod.bibl.fol.23, 43v. [return].
3. Ho Diéguez, C.V., 2011, "Patrimonio Ibérico – Monumentos de Oviedo y el Reino de Asturias," ("Iberian heritage - Monuments of Oviedo and the Kingdom of Asturias" - Google Translate), 26 May. [return]
4. Bennett, J., 2001, "Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, pl.3. [return]
5. "Arca Santa," Wikipedia, 29 November 2016. [return]
6. Guscin, M., 1996, "The Sudarium of Oviedo," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 43, June/July; Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.14; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.91; Whanger, M.W. & Whanger, A.D., 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: An Adventure of Discovery," Providence House Publishers: Franklin TN, p.56; Guscin, M., 1999, "Recent Historical Investigations on the Sudarium of Oviedo," in Walsh, B.J., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.122-141, 128-129; Bennett, 2001, pp.28-29, 102a, 194; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, pp.41-42; Whiting, B., 2006, "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, p.322; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, pp.182-183; Anderson, M.J., 2015, "The `Other' Shroud of Christ: The Sudarium of Oviedo," Catholic World Report, April 1; Klimczak, N., 2016, "The Shroud of Oviedo: A Legendary Cloth Connected to the Death of Jesus," Ancient Origins, 2 April. [return]
7. Bennett, 2001, p.195. [return]
8. Latourette, K.S., 1953, "A History of Christianity: Volume 1: to A.D. 1500," Harper & Row: New York NY, Reprinted, 1975, p.296; Oxley, 2010, p.30; "Byzantine Iconoclasm: The second iconoclast period: 814–842," Wikipedia, 20 February 2017. [return]
9. Latourette, 1953, p.296. [return]
10. "Byzantine Iconoclasm," Wikipedia, 20 February 2017. [return]
11. "File:Chludov Nikephoros I of Constantinople.jpg," Wikimedia Commons, 20 February 2017. [return]
12. "Nikephoros I of Constantinople," Wikipedia, 3 February 2017. [return]
13. "John VII of Constantinople," Wikipedia, 3 February 2017. [return]
14. "Byzantine Iconoclasm: Iconodule arguments," Wikipedia, 20 February 2017. [return]
15. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.116, 157-158; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.114; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.154-155; 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.153-154; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.114; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.182. [return]
16. Jones, S.E., 2013, Email to Ian Wilson, cc. Barrie Schwortz, "Re: A major discovery of a depiction of Christ being scourged naked from behind in the Stuttgart Psalter (820-830) and the two scourgers' fingers pointing to Christ's head are unnaturally in the shape of a reversed 3!," 21 October 2013, 11:50 AM. [return]
17. Schwortz, B., 2013, Email to Stephen E. Jones & Ian Wilson, Ibid, 22 October 2013, 3:59 AM. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 2013, Email to Stephen E. Jones & Barrie Schwortz, Ibid, 22 October 2013, 7:11 AM. [return]
19. de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.181. [return]
20. de Wesselow, 2012, p.181. [return]
21. de Wesselow, 2012, p.181. [return]
22. Wilson, 1986, p.114; Wilson, 1991, pp.160-161; Wilson, 1998, p.147; Wilson, 2010, pp.182-183. [return]
23. "Carolingian art," Wikipedia, 3 January 2017. [return]
24. Wilson, 1998, p.156. [return]
25. Wilson, 1979, p.137. [return]
26 "Map from Şanlıurfa, Şanlıurfa Province, Turkey to Jerusalem, Israel," Google Maps, 2 April 2017. [return]
27. Wilson, 1979, pp.148-150; Wilson, 1998, pp.148, 267; Wilson, 2010, pp.157, 300. [return]
28. Wilson, 2010, pp.147-148. [return]
29. Wilson, 2010, p.109; Wilson, 1979, p.94; Wilson, 1986, p.103; Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.77. [return]
30. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
31. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
32. Wilson, 1979, p.94; Scavone, 1989, p.77. [return]
33. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
34. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
35. Wilson, 2010, p.148. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, p.94; Wilson, 1986, p.103; Scavone, 1989, p.77. [return]
37. Wilson, 1979, p.94. [return]
38. Wilson, 1998, pp.256, 268. [return]
39. Wilson, 1979, pp.256, 272; Wilson, 1998, p.268; Oxley, 2010, p.24; Wilson, 2010, p.167. [return]
40. Wilson, 2010, p.109. [return]
41. Bennett, 2001, pp.13, 66. [return]
42. Wilson, 1979, p.94; Wilson, 1986, p.103. [return]
43. Wilson, 2010, pp.148-150. [return]
44. "De Locis Sanctis," Wikipedia, 2 March 2017. [return]
45. "Straw man," Wikipedia, 27 March 2017. [return]
46. "Michael III," Wikipedia, 14 March 2017. [return]
47. "Theodora (wife of Theophilos)," Wikipedia, 20 March 2017. [return]
48. "Michael III," Wikipedia, 14 March 2017. [return]
49. "Theodora (wife of Theophilos): Empress consort," Wikipedia, 20 March 2017. [return]
50. Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.194; Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, pp.116-117. [return]
51. "Michael III - Byzantine Coinage," SB 1687, WildWinds.com, October 25, 2016. [return]
52. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.194; Fanti & Malfi, 2015, pp.116-117. [return]
53. "Theoktistos," Wikipedia, 20 March 2017. [return]
54. "Michael III," Wikipedia, 14 March 2017. [return]
55. Manton, L., 1996, "The Cappadocian Frescoes and the Turin Shroud," British Society for the Turin Shroud Monographs, No. 5, p.6. [return]
56. "Michael III," Wikipedia, 14 March 2017. [return]

Posted: 25 March 2017. Updated: 9 April 2017.