Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Eleventh century

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

This is part #11, "Eleventh century," of my "Chronology of the Turin Shroud: AD 30 - present" series. See also 04May14 and 11May14. For more information about this series see part #1, "1st century and Index." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 10th century #10] [Next: 12th century (1) #12]

---

11th century (1001-1100).

[Above (enlarge): "Scenes from the Passion of Christ"[2]. Part of a larger carved ivory panel in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London[3]. Note that Jesus' arms are crossed awkwardly at the wrists, right over left, over His loins[4], exactly as they are on the Shroud[5]. And Jesus is lying on a double-length cloth[6] which has a repeating pattern of Xs similar to those in icons of the Image of Edessa (i.e. the Shroud "doubled in four" = tetradiplon) and hinting at the Shroud's herringbone weave[7]. Yet this is a late 11th/early 12th century Byzantine icon[8], an early example of the genre which the Byzantine Greeks called Threnos[9], or Lamentation, the main feature of which is Jesus wrapped in a large cloth compatible with today's Turin Shroud[10]. [See "c.1090" below]. This alone is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud already existed more than a century before the earliest 1260 radiocarbon date of the Shroud!]

c. 1001a The Russian Orthodox cross uniquely has a footrest, or suppedaneum[11], angled with the left side higher than the right[12].

[Right (enlarge): Russian cross with angled footrest, late 12th century[13].

This matches the Shroud, in that the man on the Shroud's left leg (which when facing the Shroud appears to be his right leg because of mirror reversal[14]), appears to be shorter than the other[15].

This is due to his left foot having been superimposed over his right[16], and both feet fixed by a single nail[17]. The man's left leg was therefore bent more and remained fixed in that position after death by rigor mortis[18].

[Left (enlarge): The man on the Shroud's apparent right leg (left leg because of mirror reversal) appears to be shorter than his right[19].]

This presumably is the source of the 11th century Byzantine legend that Jesus actually had one leg shorter than the other and therefore was lame[20].

As this form of the cross is universal among the Russians[21] it must date from near the beginning of the national conversion to Christianity, when missionaries in 988 came from Constantinople[22] bringing a copy of the full-length Shroud, in `icon evangelism'[23].

c. 1001b Closely related to the Russian cross is the "Byzantine curve"

[Right (enlarge): "Byzantine Crucifix of Pisa," ca. 1230[24]. Note that Christ's right leg (corresponding to the Shroud's left leg) is shorter than the other leg and His body is curved (the "Byzantine curve") to compensate.]

in Byzantine Christian iconography[25]. After the year 1000, a striking change occurred in Byzantine depictions of Christ on the Cross[26]. Christ's two feet were nailed separately at the same level but his left leg is bent (based presumably on the Byzantines realising that the Shroud's image is laterally inverted) which meant that Jesus' body needed to curve to His right to compensate[27]. This "Byzantine curve" became the established form of Eastern depictions of Christ at the beginning of the eleventh century and made its way also into the West and became the recognized form in Italy in the early mediaeval period[28]. As with the strange design of the Russian cross, so this strange belief that Jesus had to have a curved body on the Shroud because one leg was shorter than the other and the Romans would have crucified Jesus' feet at the same level[29], has its most likely common origin in the Shroud[30]. But then again that means the Shroud was known in the Byzantine world (the centre of which was Constantinople), soon after the year 1000, nearly three centuries before 1260, the earliest possible radiocarbon date of the Shroud[31]!

1011 Pope Sergius IV (r. 1009-12) consecrates an altar in Rome dedicated to the sudarium[32]. This is thought to be a reference to the coming to Rome of its Veil of Veronica[33], which was purported to be

[Above (original): Excerpt from a poor quality distance photograph of Rome's Veronica icon[34], which the Vatican now refuses to allow to be seen or photographed up close because it has so deteriorated[35].]

an imprint of Jesus' face on the veil of a Jerusalem woman named Veronica who supposedly wiped Jesus' bloody and sweaty face with it as He was being led to the site of His crucifixion[36]. But there is no mention of that in the Gospel accounts (Mt 27:31-35; Mk 15:20-25; Lk 23:26-33; Jn 19:16-18)[37]. That there never was a woman called Veronica is evident in the name itself, which is a compound of Latin vera "true" + Greek eikon "image") = "true image"[38]. The Veronica's veil legends seem to have arisen in 7th and 8th centuries, when knowledge of the Edessa Cloth/Shroud image had become widespread[39]. In the early twentieth century, Joseph Wilpert (1857-1944), a German Catholic priest and archaeologist, examined the Vatican's Veronica icon in St Peter's Basilica and found on it brown stains but no clear image[40]. Similarly, Hungarian artist Isabel Piczek (1927–2016) in 1946, when still a teenager, was surprisingly shown the Veronica in St. Peter's, and as she described it:

"On it was a head-size patch of colour, about the same as the [Turin] shroud, slightly more brownish. By patch, I do not mean that it was patched, just a blob of a brownish rust colour. It looked almost even, except for some little swirly discolorations ... Even with the best imagination, you could not make any face or features out of them, not even the slightest hint of it"[41].

Earlier artists' copies of the Veronica icon indicate it was a copy of the face on the Cloth of Edessa/Shroud[42] specially made for Rome shortly before the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches went their separate ways[43]. Indeed, when Makarios of Magnesia, c. 410, retold the Veronica legend, he called her a "Princess of Edessa"[44]! This supports my proposal that, "the Veronica story" may be "a contemporary parallel to [or even earlier than] the Abgar V story of Jesus wiping his face on a towel [see "50"], to explain how Jesus' image came to be on the Image of Edessa (the Shroud tetradiplon = `four-doubled')" (see my 06Mar17). It has been claimed that Rome's Veronica icon disappeared when the troops of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (r. 1519-1556) mutinied and sacked Rome and the Vatican in 1527[45]. But in 1616-17 six official faithful "tone for tone, blotch for blotch" copies of the Veronica in St Peter's were commissioned by Pope Paul V (r. 1605-1621) to be painted by an amateur artist who was also a canon of St Peter's, Pietro Strozzi[46]. And at least three of Strozzi's copies have survived: "The Holy Face of Vienna," "The Holy Face of San Silvestro," and "The Holy Face of Genoa" (see my 03Sep12)[47]. So this 1527 looted Veronica was evidently only one of the many copies of that icon[48].

c. 1050a The mid-eleventh-century Old French "Life of Saint Alexis"[49], the first masterpiece of French literature, contains the passage:

"Then he [Alexis of Rome (d.412)] went off to the city of Edessa Because of an image he had heard tell of, which the angels made at God's commandment"[50]

[Left: Miniature and text of the "Chanson de St Alexis" or "Vie de St Alexis," in the St. Albans Psalter (c. 1120-1145)[51].]

As philologist Linda Cooper has shown in a scholarly paper[52], the "image" referred to is the Image of Edessa, and from the various versions of St. Alexis's life it is clear that this was the Shroud[53]. See ["977"] for a 10th century "Life of St. Alexis" which used the word "sindon," the same word used in the Gospels for Jesus' burial shroud[54] (Mt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53)!

c. 1050b Eleventh-century mosaic bust of Christ Pantocrator, i.e. "Ruler of all"[55], in the narthex of the catholicon church (c. 1010) within the Hosios Loukas monastery[56] near the town of Distomo, Greece[57].

[Right (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator, c. 1050, Hosios Loukas monastery, Greece[58].]

The late art historian, Professor Kurt Weitzmann (1904-93), who specialised in Byzantine and medieval art[59], noted that this icon had facial "subtleties" similar to the sixth-century Christ Pantocrator icon portrait in St. Catherine's monastery, Sinai[60] [see "550"]. In particular Prof. Weitzmann noted:

"...the pupils of the eyes are not at the same level; the eyebrow over Christ's left eye is arched higher than over his right ... one side of the mustache droops at a slightly different angle from the other, while the beard is combed in the opposite direction ... Many of these subtleties remain attached to this particular type of Christ image and can be seen in later copies, e.g. the mosaic bust in the narthex of Hosios Lukas over the entrance to the catholicon ... Here too the difference in the raising of the eyebrows is most noticeable ..."[61].

Those facial "subtleties" that Prof. Weitzmann noted were "attached to this particular type of Christ image and can be seen in later copies" are Vignon markings (see 11Feb12) which are all found on the Shroud (see below)!

[Above (enlarge): Positive photograph of the Shroud face, with Vignon markings numbers 1-15 superimposed[61a].

1075 On 14 March 1075 the ark or chest (Arca Santa) in which the

[Above (enlarge)[62]: The Holy Chest (or Arca Santa) in which the Sudarium was transported from Jerusalem in 614[63], via Alexandria[64], to Cartagena and Seville in Spain in 616[65]; taken to the Monastery of San Vicente near Oviedo in 761[66], deposited in the Holy Chamber (Camara Santa), which is within today's Oviedo Cathedral, by King Alfonso II (r. 783, 791-842) in c.812[67], opened by Bishop Ponce (1025–1028) in 1030[68] and again opened by King Alfonso IV (1040–1109) in 1075[69].]

Sudarium of Oviedo was kept was officially opened in the presence of King Alfonso VI (r. 1077-1109), his sister Doña Urraca (c.1033–1101), Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (c. 1040–1099) (aka El Cid) and a number of bishops[70]. This official act was recorded in a document which is now kept in the archives of the cathedral in Oviedo[71]. But as we saw

[Above (enlarge): "Comparison of the Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin"[72]. "The most striking thing about all the stains [on the Sudarium of Oviedo] is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud."[73].]

in ["614"], the bloodstains on the face and back of the head of the Sudarium of Oviedo are so similar in appearance to those on the corresponding parts of the Shroud, that the two cloths must have been in contact with the same wounded body within the same short time period[74]. And since the Sudarium has been in Spain since the early seventh century, and certainly since 1075, this is further evidence that the "mediaeval ... AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud[75] was wrong[76]!

c. 1080 Eleventh-century Christ Pantocrator mosaic in the dome of the monastery church of Daphni near Athens, Greece[77]. It has 13

[Left (enlarge): Christ Pantocrator mosaic from Daphni, Greece[78].]

of the 15 Vignon markings[79]. Some of the markings (for example, the three-sided, or topless square) are stylized having been rendered more naturalistic by a very competent artist[80].

c. 1087 The Pantocrator in the apse of Sant'Angelo in Formis church, near Capua, Italy, had previously been cited by Wilson and others to have been tenth century, which I had followed. But according to Wikipedia, the "church was built in the eleventh century by Desiderius, the abbot of Monte Cassino," who became Pope Victor III (c. 1026–1087)[81]:

"The church was built in the eleventh century by Desiderius, the abbot of Monte Cassino ... the decoration was carried out by Byzantine (Greek) artists hired from Constantinople and the decoration of Sant'Angelo displays a mingling of the Byzantine (Eastern) and Latin (Western) traditions. The frescos were painted by Greek artists and by Italian pupils trained in their methods"[82].

This "Christ enthroned" fresco[83] has 14 out of the 15 Vignon

[Above (enlarge): Extract of Christ's face which is part of a larger 11th century fresco in the church of St. Angelo in Formis, Capua, Italy[84].]

markings that are on the Shroud[85], many of which are just incidental blemishes on the cloth[86]. These include:

"... a transverse line across the forehead, a raised right eyebrow, an upside-down triangle at the bridge of the nose, heavily delineated lower eyelids, a strongly accentuated left cheek, a strongly accentuated right cheek, and a hairless gap between the lower lip and beard ..."[87].

One of these, the upside-down triangle at the bridge of the nose (VM 3)[88] is particularly important because it has no logic as a natural

[Above (enlargee): Upside-down triangle at the bridge of the nose on the Shroud, just below the base of the `topless square'[89].]

feature of the face, yet it recurs on several other pre-1260 depictions of Jesus' face, for example, the eleventh-century mosaic Pantocrator in the dome of the church at Daphni, near Athens (see above enlarged), where, being a mosaic, pieces of black material have been specially selected and arranged into the shape of a triangle[90].

c. 1090 Late eleventh/early twelfth century Byzantine ivory of the threnos (Greek for lamentation) scenes of Jesus (see above and right for context). This is an example of a dramatic change in depictions of Jesus' burial which began about the beginning of the eleventh century[91].

[Right (original): Full carved ivory panel in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London[92], showing scenes of: crucifixion (top), deposition (middle) and burial threnos (bottom).]

Before the eleventh century Jesus had been traditionally depicted as being buried wrapped in linen strips like an Egyptian mummy[93]. But from the early eleventh century, in threnos (lamentation) burial scenes[94], Jesus' began to be be depicted lying full-length[95] in front of the Cross as the central figure[96] and His body about to be enveloped in a double full-length white shroud[97]. In these depictions Jesus' right hand is crossed over the left at the wrists as it is on the Shroud[98]. This sudden new artistic development coincides with the discovery after the Image of Edessa arrived in Constantinople in 944 [see "944b"] that behind its face panel was the full-length Shroud "doubled in four" (tetradiplon)[99].

1092 A letter dated 1092 purporting to be from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081 to 1118) (aka Alexius I Comnenus) to Robert II of Flanders (c.1065- 1111)[100]. In the letter

[Left (enlarge): Portrait of Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus (1056-1118), from a Greek manuscript[101].]

the Emperor appealed for help to prevent Constantinople falling into the hands of the pagans[102]. The letter listed the relics "of the Lord" in Constantinople including, "the linen cloths [linteamina] found in the sepulchre after his Resurrection"[103]. Although historians regard the letter as a forgery[104], it may not be, since Robert had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1086 and had spent some time with Alexius I in Constantinople, and there is no reason why the two had not remained in touch[105]. Besides, even if Alexius I did not write the letter, this need not invalidate its description of the relics which were then in the imperial collection[106]. See below on the appeal by the same Emperor for Western help to prevent Anatolia from falling into the hands of Muslim forces.

1095 Start of the First Crusade (1095–1099) which sought to regain the Holy Land taken in the Muslim conquests of the Levant (632–661)[107]. The crusade was called for by Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099), in response to an appeal by Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081 to 1118) who requested western help to repel the invading Seljuk Turks from Anatolia[108]. See above on the 1092 appeal by the same Emperor for Western help to prevent Constantinople from falling into the hands of Muslim forces. The crusade climaxed in the recapture of Jerusalem in 1099[109]. In 1098 Edessa was captured by Christian forces under Baldwin of Boulogne (1058-1118) who became the first ruler of the County of Edessa and then the first King of Jerusalem (r. 1098–1100)[110].

[Right (enlarge): "Baldwin of Boulogne entering Edessa in February 1098," by J. Robert-Fleury (1840)[111].]

Edessa became an important part of the Crusader presence in the Middle East[112] until its recapture by Muslim forces in 1144[113]. [See "1144"]. An important consequence for Shroud history of the Christian capture of Edessa in the First Crusade is that Byzantine texts about Edessa became better known in the West[114]. Among these were the Abgar story[115] [See "c.1130"].

c. 1100 Late eleventh century portable mosaic, "Christ the Merciful"[116], in the former Ehemals Staatliche Museum[117], now Bodemuseum, Berlin.

[Left (enlarge): "Christ the Merciful" mosaic icon (1100-1150) in the Bodemuseum, Berlin[118].]

By my count this icon has 12 (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15) of the 15 Vignon markings including a wisp of hair where the reversed `3' bloodflow is on the Shroud, a topless square, wide open staring eyes, a forked beard and a line across the throat, but they are more stylized[119].

Remember:

"... if the radiocarbon dating is to be believed, there should be no evidence of our Shroud [before 1260]. The year 1260 was the earliest possible date for the Shroud's existence by radiocarbon dating's calculations. Yet artistic likenesses of Jesus originating well before 1260 can be seen to have an often striking affinity with the face on the Shroud ..."[120].

Continued in the next part #12 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. "Scenes from the Passion of Christ; The Crucifixion, the Deposition from the Cross, The Entombment and the Lamentation," Victoria and Albert Museum, London. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.160; Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.151; 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.147, 270. [return]
4. Wilson, 1979, p.160. [return]
5. Wilson, 1991, p.151; Wilson, 1998, p.270; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.183. [return]
6. Wilson, 1991, p.151. [return]
7. Scavone, D.C., 1999, "Greek Epitaphoi and Other Evidence for the Shroud in Constantinople up to 1204," in Walsh, B., ed., 2000, "Proceedings of the 1999 Shroud of Turin International Research Conference, Richmond, Virginia," Magisterium Press: Glen Allen VA, pp.204-205. [return]
8. Wilson, 1998, p.147. [return]
9. Wilson, 1991, p.151; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, p.195. [return]
10. Wilson, 2010, p.182. [return]
11. Bulst, W., 1957, "The Shroud of Turin," McKenna, S. & Galvin, J.J., transl., Bruce Publishing Co: Milwaukee WI, p.47. [return]
12. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, p.65. [return]
13. The Adoration of the Cross," Second half of the 12th century, "Christian Art: Icons, Murals, Mosaics," The Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, Russia, 2 April 2014. [return]
14. Barnes, 1934, p.64. [return]
15. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.196. [return]
16. Ibid. [return]
17. Barnes, 1934, p.64. [return]
18. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.196. [return]
19. Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical". [return]
20. 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.111. [return]
21. Barnes, 1934, p.65. [return]
22. Barnes, 1934, pp.65-66. [return]
23. Wilson, 2010, pp.136-137, 151-152. [return]
24. "Byzantine Master of the Crucifix of Pisa," Wikipedia, 14 April 2017. [return]
25. Barnes, 1934, p.66. [return]
26. Barnes, 1934, pp.66-67. [return]
27. Barnes, 1934, p.67. [return]
28. Barnes, 1934, pp.67-68. [return]
30. Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.195. [return]
29. Barnes, 1934, p.68. [return]
31. Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]
32. Wilson, 1998, p.269; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.7; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.37. [return]
33. Bulst, 1957, p.40; Wilson, 1979, p.109. [return]
34. "St. Peter's Basilica: St Veronica Statue," February 6, 2010. [return]
35. Bulst, 1957, p.41; Wilson, 1991, pp.183-187; Oxley, 2010, p.37; Wilson, 1998, p.63. [return]
36. Wilson, 1979, pp.97, 106; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.25-26; Scavone, D.C., "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C.," in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee ofork NY, pp.265-266; Wilson, 1991, p.25; Guerrera, 2001, p.7; Oxley, 2010, p.36. [return]
37. Bulst, 1957, p.12; Guerrera, 2001, p.7. [return]
38. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.25-26; Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 1983, p.71; Cruz, J.C., 1984, "Relics: The Shroud of Turin, the True Cross, the Blood of Januarius. ..: History, Mysticism, and the Catholic Church," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, p.53; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.191; Ruffin, 1999, p.59; Guerrera, 2001, p.7. [return]
39. Meacham, W., 1983, "The Authentication of the Turin Shroud: An Issue in Archaeological Epistemology," Current Anthropology, Vol. 24, No. 3, June, pp.283-311, 287; .287; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 50. [return]
40. Bulst, 1957, p.41; Antonacci, 2000, p.265; Oxley, 2010, p.37. [return]
41. Wilson, 1991, p.185. [return]
42. Bulst, 1957, p.40. [return]
43. Borkan, 1995, p.35; Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.191; Wilson, 1998, pp.269-270. [return]
44. Scavone, 1991, p.195. [return]
45. Wilson, 1979, p.107; Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.129; Antonacci, 2000, p.265; Oxley, 2010, p.37. [return]
46. Wilson, 1991, pp.106-113; Oxley, 2010, p.37. [return]
47. Wilson, 1991, pp.111-114. [return]
48. Wilson, 1991, p.47; Antonacci, 2000, p.265; Bennett, 2001, p.87. [return]
49. Bauer, B.L.M. & Slocum, J., 2013, "Old French Online: Lesson 3," Linguistics Research Center in The College of Liberal Arts, University of Texas at Austin, 11 December. [return]
50. Wilson, I., 1987, "Recent Publications," British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter 16, May, p.14. [return]
51. "St. Albans Psalter," Wikipedia, 1 July 2017. [return]
52. Cooper, L., 1986, "The Old French Life of Saint Alexis and the Shroud of Turin," Modern Philology, Vol. 84, No. 1, August, pp.1-17. [return]
53. Wilson, 1987, p.14. [return]
54. Wilson, 1998, p.269. [return]
55. Ruffin, 1999, p.110; Zodhiates, S., 1992, "The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament," AMG Publishers: Chattanooga TN, Third printing, 1994, pp.1093-1094. [return]
56. "Hosios Loucas (Stiris)," Pausanias Project, January 5, 2015. [return]
57. "Hosios Loukas," Wikipedia, 15 June 2017. [return]
58. Ibid. [return]
59. "Kurt Weitzmann," Wikipedia, 1 May 2017. [return]
60. Wilson, 1986, p.107. [return]
61. Weitzmann, K., 1976, "The Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai: The Icons," Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, p.15, in Wilson, 1986, p.107. [return]
61a. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002: Face Only Horizontal (cropped and rotated right 90°), Sindonology.org. [return]
62. "Arca Santa," Wikipedia, 29 November 2016. [return]
63. 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, p.194. [return]
64. Bennett, 2001, p.194. [return]
65. Bennett, 2001, p.194. [return]
66. Bennett, 2001, p.195. [return]
67. Bennett, 2001, p.195. [return]
68. Bennett, 2001, pp.195-196. [return]
69. Bennett, 2001, p.196. [return]
70. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.17. [return]
71. Guscin, 1998, p.17. [return]
72. Bennett, 2001, p.122. [return]
73. Guscin, 1998, p.27. [return]
74. Adler, A.D., 1996, "Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., 2002, "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, pp.81-86, 83. [return]
75. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615, 611. [return]
76. Adler, A.D., 2000, "The Shroud Fabric and the Body Image: Chemical and Physical Characteristics," in Adler & Crispino, 2002, pp.113-127, 124. [return]
77. Maher, R.W., 1986, "Science, History, and the Shroud of Turin," Vantage Press: New York NY, p.77. [return]
78. "Daphni Monastery," Wikipedia, 7 May 2017. [return]
79. Maher, 1986, p.77. [return]
80. Wilcox, R.K., 1977, "Shroud," Macmillan: New York NY, p.84; Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
81. "Pope Victor III," Wikipedia, 25 June 2017. [return]
82. "Sant'Angelo in Formis," Wikipedia, 3 January 2017. [return]
83. Wilson, 1991, p.47. [return]
84. Wilson, 1986, p.110A. [return]
85. Wilson, 1979, p.102. [return]
86. Wilson, 1991, p.47. [return]
87. Wilson, 1991, p.165. [return]
88. Wilson, I., 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82e. [return]
89. "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Face Only Vertical". [return]
90. Wilson, 1991, p.165. [return]
91. Morgan, R.H., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin by an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, p.37; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.26. [return]
92. "Scenes from the Passion of Christ," Victoria and Albert Museum, London. [return]
93. Wilson, 1979, pp.158-159; Wilson, 1986, p.114; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1990, "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, p.79. [return]
94. Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, p.119. [return]
95. Morgan, 1980, p.37. [return]
96. Iannone, 1998, p.119. [return]
97. Adams, 1982, p.27; Iannone, 1998, p.119. [return]
98. Adams, 1982, p.27. [return]
99. Morgan, 1980, pp.37-38. [return]
100. Wilson, 1979, pp.166-167. [return]
101. "Alexios I Komnenos," Wikipedia, 7 August 2017. [return]
102. Ricci, G., 1981, "The Holy Shroud," Center for the Study of the Passion of Christ and the Holy Shroud: Milwaukee WI, p.xxxv; Scavone, D., "The Shroud of Turin in Constantinople: The Documentary Evidence," in Sutton, R.F., Jr., 1989, "Daidalikon: Studies in Memory of Raymond V Schoder," Bolchazy Carducci Publishers: Wauconda IL, pp.311-329, 318. [return]
103. Currer-Briggs, N., 1989, "Letters," BSTS Newsletter, No. 22, May, pp.11-12; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.177. [return]
104. Wilson, 1979, p.314n31. [return]
105. Crispino, D.C., 1989, "Questions in a Quandary," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 31, June, pp.15-19, 17. [return]
106. Wilson, 1979, p.314n31. [return]
107. "First Crusade," Wikipedia, 5 August 2017. [return]
108. Ibid. [return]
109. "Siege of Jerusalem (1099)," Wikipedia, 30 June 2017. [return]
110. "Baldwin I of Jerusalem," Wikipedia, 14 July 2017. [return]
111. "File:Baldwin of Boulogne entering Edessa in Feb 1098.JPG," Wikipedia, 23 March 2017. [return]
112. Oxley, 2010, p.33. [return]
113. "Siege of Edessa," Wikipedia, 12 June 2017. [return]
114. Scavone, D.C., 2002, "Joseph of Arimathea, the Holy Grail and the Edessa Icon," Collegamento pro Sindone, October, pp.1-25, p.6. [return]
115. Scavone, D.C., 1989, "The Shroud of Turin: Opposing Viewpoints," Greenhaven Press: San Diego CA, p.88. [return]
116. Wilson, 1979, p.160H. [return]
117. Ibid. [return]
118. Mosaic icon, "Christ the Merciful (1100-1150), in Museum of Byzantine Art, Bode Museum, Berlin, Germany: Wikipedia (translated by Google). [return]
119. Wilson, 1979, p.104. [return]
120. Wilson, 1998, p.141. [return]

Posted 27 July 2017. Updated 11 November 2024.

"Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud," Shroud of Turin News, June 2017

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

[Previous: June 2017, part #1] [Next: July 2017, part #1]

This is part #2 of the June 2017 issue of my Shroud of Turin News. Footnotes have been omitted. Typos have been corrected. The article's words are bold to distinguish them from mine. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

Carlino, E, De Caro, L, Giannini, C, & Fanti, G., 2017, "Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud," PLoS ONE, 12(6), June 30.

Abstract. We performed reproducible atomic resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning Microscopy experiments studying for the first time the nanoscale properties of a pristine fiber taken from the Turin Shroud. We found evidence of biologic nanoparticles of creatinine bounded with small nanoparticles of iron oxide. The kind, size and distribution of the iron oxide nanoparticles cannot be dye for painting but are ferrihydrate cores of ferritin. The consistent bound of ferritin iron to creatinine occurs in human organism in case of a severe polytrauma. Our results point out that at the nanoscale a scenario of violence is recorded in the funeral fabric and suggest an explanation for some contradictory results so far published.

[Above (original): Extract of Fig 1: Low-magnification, light microscopy image of a fibre from the Shroud, the arrows indicate some of the blood particles on the surface of the fibre.]

This discovery of particles of "creatinine ... an important indicator of renal health[2]," in the Shroud man's blood, has been reported in many news articles, including: "Shroud, new study: there is blood of a man tortured and killed," Vatican Insider, Andrea Tornielli, 11 July 2017; "New research: Shroud of Turin bears blood of a torture victim," Catholic News Agency, Turin, Italy, July 14, 2017; "Experts in HUGE Turin Shroud discovery – is this proof at last Jesus WAS wrapped in cloth?," Daily Express, Joey Millar, July 17, 2017; "Turin Shroud is stained with the blood of a torture victim, new research shows - supporting the belief that it DOES show the face of Jesus," Daily Mail, Jay Akbar, 18 July 2017; "The Shroud of Turin is stained with the blood of a torture victim, a new study claims," The Sun, July 18, 2017. I will comment on some of them in July's Shroud of Turin News. Not only is creatinine in the man on the Shroud's blood: 1) an indicator that he was a real man, not a painting; 2) his blood is real blood, not paint or pigment; 3) he had been subject to trauma, as a crucifixion victim, including Jesus, would have been; and 4) a medieval forger would have known nothing about creatinine, which was only discovered in 1832[2].

But if the image of the man on the Shroud is not "a product of human artifice" then leading Shroud sceptics Steven Schafersman (and Joe Nickell who quoted Schafersman approvingly) have admitted that "the image is that of Jesus" and there is no "possible third hypothesis":

"As the (red ochre) dust settles briefly over Sindondom, it becomes clear there are only two choices: Either the shroud is authentic (naturally or supernaturally produced by the body of Jesus) or it is a product of human artifice. Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson[3] and Stevenson and Habermas[4] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate)[5]. I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus'[6]."

Introduction. The Turin Shroud (TS) is a handmade 3–1 twill linen cloth, 4.4 m long and 1.1 m wide, showing the double image of a dead body of a scourged, thorn-crowned man who was stabbed in the side and crucified. It is believed by many that it was the burial cloth in which Jesus of Nazareth was wrapped about 2000 years ago. Conversely, others think that it is a fake. However, the TS image has not been explained nor reproduced so far by science, although some hypotheses have been proposed. There are some indications that the TS was in Palestine in the first century A.D. and then taken to Edessa, now Sanliurfa (TR). The similarity of many details of the TS face with the Christ on Byzantine coins in use from the VII century A.D. is a clue that the TS were already known during the Byzantine Empire" is After the sack of Constantinople in 1204 the "Shroud of Christ" appeared in Europe in 1353 at Lirey (F) and in 1532 at Chambéry (F) where it was fire damaged. It was taken to Turin in 1578 where it is still now.

In the article, "The similarity of many details of the TS face with the Christ on Byzantine coins in use from the VII century A.D." (above) is referenced by footnote "[3]." That footnote refers to the book, Fanti G & Malfi P., "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford, Singapore, 2015. That book has an entire chapter, "3. Numismatic Investigation" (pages 81-140), with photographs of a great many Byzantine coins each with a Shroud-like face of Christ. One of these (see below) is a gold solidus coin minted in 692 during the reign of Byzantium Emperor Justinian II (685-695, 705-711).

[Above (enlarge): "Gold solidus of ... the first period of Emperor Justinian II, minted in 692, depicting a Shroud-like face of Christ ... we find ourselves in front of a Shroud-like face of Christ. Shroud resemblances of this face" include "the swelling on the cheeks caused by the suffered blows, the asymmetrical tear on the right side beard, and the asymmetrical hair shape."[7].]

In 1988 the linen fabric of the TS was radiocarbon dated to the Middle Ages. This result is considered wrong by some authors claiming the presence of systematic errors. Another work indicated an age for the TS "between 1300-and 3000-years old." A mechanical analysis coupled with opto-chemical measurements has recently dated the TS to 90 AD ±200 years.

There may well have been "systematic errors" in the 1988 Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, but that does not explain how the radiocarbon date of the authentic first century Shroud could be shifted 12-13 centuries into the future to not just any date, but to 1269-1390, the mid-point of which, 1325 ± `just happens' to be a mere ~30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c. 1355. But my theory that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking does explain it.

The "work [which] indicated an age for the TS "between 1300-and 3000-years old" with the footnote "[9]" was the 2005 paper by STURP chemist Ray Rogers (1927–2005), in the peer-reviewed journal Thermochimica Acta, in which Rogers reported that the vanillin content of the Shroud's linen was too low (i.e. undetectable) for it to have been harvested between 1260-1390:

"In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between A.D. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin ... Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses ... The lignin at growth nodes on the shroud’s flax fibers ... did not give the usual chemical spot test ... for vanillin ... The Holland cloth and other medieval linens gave a clear test. This suggested that the rate of loss of vanillin from lignin could offer a method for estimating the age of the shroud ... If the shroud had been produced between A.D. 1260 and 1390, as indicated by the radiocarbon analyses, lignin should be easy to detect. A linen produced in A.D. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth, and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported ... Because the shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test, the [Shroud] cloth must be quite old. It is thus very unlikely that the [Shroud] linen was produced during medieval times ... 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[8]."

This was the subject of a 2005 BBC news article:

"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 ... Raymond Rogers ... 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 ... 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.'[9]."

The, "A mechanical analysis coupled with opto-chemical measurements has recently dated the TS to 90 AD ±200 years" (above) presumably is an update of three different methods (or a new fourth) to date the Shroud, carried out under the leadership of engineering professor Giulio Fanti [Right (enlarge)[10].] at the University of Padua, Italy. I had blogged about Prof. Fanti's three new methods of dating the Shroud in my posts of 27Mar13, 02Apr13, 21Apr13 and 02Jan14. They were mainly in response to the news articles, Tornielli, A., 2013, "New experiments on Shroud show it's not medieval," Vatican Insider, 26 March and Squires, N., 2013, "Turin Shroud 'is not a medieval forgery'," Daily Telegraph, 30 March. These three tests and their results were:

"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 of the Shroud is 33 BC ±250 years"[11].

This is summarised in the following table:

Test	Max/Min	Range
FT-IR	300 BC ±400	700 BC-AD 100
Raman	200 BC ± 500	700 BC-AD 300
Mechanical	400 AD ± 400	AD 0 - AD 800

So all three tests yield a date range in which Jesus' death (either AD 30 or AD 33) falls!

The TS shows a pale yellow background fabric, the body image — devoid of pigments — produced by a chemical reaction (dehydration and oxidation), blood stains and other localized signs of minor interest like burns, water stains etc. In 1969 Cardinal Pellegrino appointed a commission to investigate if the red stains clearly visible on the TS were blood. In 1973, a discordant conclusion was obtained: "The negative response of the investigation does not allow an absolute judgment of exclusion of blood nature of the material". Subsequent analyses of some TS threads evidenced only the presence of red pigments compatible with red ochre and vermilion, whereas other researchers found the evidence of blood. A recent study found both blood and pigments proposing a retouch for the faded bloodstains. In summary, there is a strong controversial about the TS authenticity due to contradictory results of scientific analyses.

This is confusing mentioning nearly 50 year-old Shroud blood research that had long been superseded (perhaps insisted upon by the peer-reviewers). The 1969-73 Turin commissions did not find evidence of blood on the Shroud because they failed to dissolve the blood particles into a solution, which was necessary to carry out the required wet chemical tests[12]. As for "some TS threads evidenced only the presence of red pigments compatible with red ochre and vermilion," this was the claim of the late microscopist Walter McCrone (1916-2002). But see 05Jan16 for a comprehensive refutation of McCrone's position. See also 03Jun17 where the late blood chemist Dr. Alan D. Adler (1931-2000)'s presentation of his 12 tests for blood on the Shroud at the October 1981 public final meeting of STURP in New London, Connecticut, after which he concluded:

"That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!"[13].]

Also it is hard to believe that any custodian of the Shroud over the centuries would allow the most holy, precious blood of Christ (1Pet 1:19) on the Shroud to be "retouch[ed]", i.e. overpainted! It is far more likely that any odd flecks of paint on the Shroud (including its blood areas) are due to: 1) artists pressing their painted copies of the Shroud onto the original to `sanctify' them[14], or 2) tiny airborne paint particles from artworks in the same room that the Shroud has been in over the centuries:

"The STURP team also noted from their work on site in Turin one other easy way for the Shroud to have acquired quite a sprinkling of paint particles, without these having anything to do with it being by the hand of an artist. In virtually every one of the seven rooms of Turin's Royal Palace that the team were allocated for their testing work the ceiling was a magnificent Renaissance creation, richly decorated with frescos from which tiny paint fragments would fall like confetti as the team members worked below. Accordingly, there need be no argument concerning the presence of paint pigments on the Shroud's surface. It is the distinction between those that are definitely strays and those that may have been deliberately applied that forms the basis of the continuing dispute."[15]

Up to now, to our knowledge, microscopic analyses on the TS were limited, at the best of times, to sub-micrometer spatial resolution. Here we present an atomic resolution study on a fiber of the TS performed by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning (WAXS) Microscopy. The fiber, of about two millimeters, comes from an area of the feet (dorsal image) containing some red crusts, of about one micrometer, visible by optical microscope. TEM experiments were performed in areas of the fiber away from red crusts. TEM analyses show that the fiber is fully covered by creatinine nanoparticles, 20–100 nm in size, embedding small (2–6 nm) nanoparticles, made of defected ferrihydrite, typical of biologic ferritin cores. WAXS shows the presence of diffraction peaks of defected cellulose. Here we show how atomic resolution investigations unexpectedly discover a scenario of violence hidden at the nanoscale in the TS fiber and also suggest an explanation for the controversial results so far obtained. Indeed, a high level of creatinine and ferritin is related to patients suffering of strong polytrauma like torture. Hence, the presence of these biological nanoparticles found during our TEM experiments point a violent death for the man wrapped in the Turin shroud.

That it was a "man wrapped in the Turin shroud" is alone sufficient to refute the anti-authenticist claim that the Shroud is "a product of human artifice" (see above), and therefore the only alternative (as admitted by sceptics Nickell and Schafersman) is that "the shroud is authentic," that is, "the image is that of Jesus"! Let alone that his blood contained nanoparticles of creatinine and ferritin indicating he died "a violent death" under "torture" as Jesus did. And since creatinine was only discovered in 1832, and that it is a nanoparticle, refutes all medieval forgery theories, whether painting (Bishop d'Arcis, McCrone), statue/bas relief (Nickell), medieval photograph (Nicholas Allen), Leonardo (Picknett & Prince) and a fourteenth century accident (Hugh Farey). That is all except one medieval forgery theory (see below)!

[...]

Conclusions. On the basis of the experimental evidences of our atomic resolution TEM studies, the man wrapped in the TS suffered a strong polytrauma. We studied a fiber of the TS by atomic resolution TEM experiments and WAXS. This is the first time that the TS is studied at this resolution and this range of view produced a series of experimental results, which thanks to recent studies on ancient dye painting, ferritin, creatinine and human pathology can be connected and understood in relationship with a macroscopic scenario in which the TS was committed. In fact, the fiber was soaked with a blood serum typical of a human organism that suffered a strong trauma, as HRTEM [High-Resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy] evidenced that the TS is covered by well-dispersed 30nm-100nm creatinine nanoparticles bounded with internal 2nm-6nm ferrihydrate structures. The bond between the iron cores of ferritin and creatinine on large scale occurs in a body after a strong polytrauma. This result cannot be impressed on the TS by using ancient dye pigments, as they have bigger sizes and tend to aggregate, and it is highly unlikely that the eventual ancient artist would have painted a fake by using the hematic serum of someone after a heavy polytrauma. Nevertheless, the presence of red pigments, detected in some studies seems to indicate a human intervention on the TS. This, in turn, has generated some difficulties for the modern investigations and stimulated the scientific debate about the actual origin of the TS. The analyses discussed in literature so far, have been realized without the necessary spatial resolution to distinguish what is coming from the nanoscale and cannot filter eventual artifacts. This has been the target of our work and the obtained results are not compatible with a painting but evidenced the presence of nanoparticles of pathologic blood serum related to the presence of creatinine bound with ferrihydrate, which are typical of an organism that suffered a strong polytrauma, like torture. Indeed, unexpectedly, at the nanoscale it is encoded a scenario of great suffering recorded on the nanoparticles attached to the linen fibers. Furthermore, here the experiments point how the nanoscale enable to study unspoiled properties of the Turin Shroud suggesting an effective experimental strategy for further studies.

That the particles of creatine and ferritin are nanoparticles (i.e. of the order of billionths of a metre) is the final nail in the coffin of all forms of the medieval painting and powder forgery theories. A medieval forger would not know about, could not see, let alone apply, nanoparticles.

However, as indicated above, there is still one last desperate refuge that anti-authenticists could flee to, and that is the theory that a forger took a real, live man, and in a mockery of Jesus, beat him, scourged him with a Roman flagrum [see 08Oct6], crowned him with thorns, crucified him, speared him in the side with a Roman lancea [see 03Jun17], and laid his dead body on a fine linen sheet with a rare and expensive 3:1 herringbone twill weave [see 16Juy15], which measured 8 by 2 Assyrian standard cubits [see 10Jul15], and then dusted it with pollen which matched the Shroud's journey from Jerusalem to Constantinople [see 16May15]! The principal proponent of that theory (albeit without those inconvenient facts!) is a Dr Michael Straiton and we will see its problems in the next installment.

As mentioned above, since the discovery of nanoparticles of creatinine and ferritin in the man on the Shroud's blood is the refutation of all forms of the painting and powder forgery theory, the only refuge for anti-authenticists is that a real, live man was tortured and crucified in mockery of Jesus. This is the view of British physician Dr Michael Straiton, that the man on the Shroud is a 13th century crusader who was crucified by Muslims in mockery of Jesus' crucifixion[16]. A variant of this theory is that of conspiracy theorists Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas who claim that the man on the Shroud is Knights Templar leader Jacques de Molay (c. 1243-1314)[17]. Space does not permit an examination of Knight and Lomas' theory (but see Ian Wilson's refutation of it[18]), so I will only here cover Straiton's theory. However, most of my refutation of Straiton's theory applies to all theories that the man on the Shroud was a live crucifixion victim other than Jesus.

Specifically Dr. Straiton claims that in the 1291 Siege of Acre the Shroud imprint was created on an unknown crusader's burial cloth, who was crucified by Muslim Turks in mockery of Jesus[19]. But in addition to the problems above of:
1. The man on the Shroud was scourged with a Roman flagrum; and
2. speared in the side with a Roman lancea; so where would 13th century Muslims have obtained those?
3. Similarly, where would 13th century Muslims have obtained a rare and expensive 3:1 herringbone twill weave fine linen sheet that the Shroud is?
4. Let alone one that was 8 by 2 Assyrian cubits?
5. And already, or by them, dusted with pollen which matched plants on the Shroud's journey from Jerusalem to Constantinople?

Straiton's theory needs to explain, but doesn't:
6. How exactly was the crusader's image formed on the Shroud[20].
7. Why did the crusader's body leave such a detailed imprint on the Shroud, when no other known dead body has[21]?
8. Why is the crusader's image on the Shroud a photographic negative[22]?
9. How did 13th century Muslims have a detailed knowledge of not only Roman crucifixion (see above)[23] but also of the Gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion[24]?
10. Why was a crusader crucified by Muslims given a dignified Jewish burial[25]?
11. Why there is evidence of the Shroud having existed many centuries before 1291[26]?

So Shroud sceptics are unlikely to flee to Dr. Straiton's theory, because as well as its above problems (most of which would be common to all live crucifixion victim other than Jesus theories), it would require them to admit they had been wrong for over a century about Bishop d'Arcis' claimed c.1355 confessed painter-forger[27]!

To be continued in the part #1 of my July 2017 Shroud of Turin News.

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 page. [return]
2. "Creatinine," Wikipedia, 10 July 2017. [return]
3. Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, pp.51-53. [return]
4. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.121-129. [return]
5. Stevenson. & Habermas, 1981, p.128. [return]
6. Schafersman, S.D., 1982, "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring, pp.37-56, p.42; in Nickell, J., 1987, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, Reprinted, 2000, p.141. [return]
7. Fanti, G. & Malfi, P., 2015, "The Shroud of Turin: First Century after Christ!," Pan Stanford: Singapore, pp.86. [return]
8. Rogers, R.N., 2005, "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta, 425, pp.189–194. [return]
9. "Turin shroud 'older than thought," BBC, 31 January, 2005. [return]
10. Roberto Brumat, 2013, "Shroud, new dating compatible with the age of Christ," (Google Translate). [return]
11. Tornielli, A., 2013, "New experiments on Shroud show it's not medieval," Vatican Insider, 26 March. [return]
12. Ruffin, C.B., "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, 1999, pp.74-75. [return]
13. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.216. [return]
14. Adler, A.D., Selzer, R. & DeBlaze, F., 1998, "Further Spectroscopic Investigations of Samples of the Shroud of Turin," in Adler, A.D. & Crispino, D., ed., "The Orphaned Manuscript: A Gathering of Publications on the Shroud of Turin," Effatà Editrice: Cantalupa, Italy, 2002, pp.93-102, 98; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.73-74; Marino, J.G., 2011, "Wrapped up in the Shroud: Chronicle of a Passion," Cradle Press: St. Louis MO, p.273. [return]
15. 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.98; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.115. [return]
16. Wilson, 1998, pp.10, 207; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.126; de Wesselow, 2012, p.150. [return]
17. Wilson, 1998, p.10; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.126; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.149-150. [return]
18. Wilson, I., 1996, "The Hiram Key," BSTS Newsletter No. 43, June/July. [return]
19. Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, p.25; Wilson, 1998, p.208. [return]
20.Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.126; . de Wesselow, 2012, p.151. [return]
21. Wilson, 1998, p.209. [return]
22. Wilson, 1998, p.10. [return]
23. de Wesselow, 2012, p.150. [return]
24. Wilson, 1998, p.208. [return]
25. Wilson, 1998, p.209; de Wesselow, 2012, p.150. [return]
26.Wilson, 1998, p.209; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.126. [return]
27. Wilson, 1991, p.25. [return]

Posted: 19 July 2017. Updated: 11 April 2022.

c.15 June 1987: On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud

© Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #4, "c.15 June 1987," of my series, "On this day 30 years ago in the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud." For more information about this series, see part #1, Index. As explained in part #1, the first few significant days 30 years ago have already passed but I will catch up and thereafter publish each day's post as near to its 30th anniversary as possible. Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.

[Index #1] [Previous: 06May87 #3] [Next: 29Jun87 #5]

Background Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009), the unofficial leader of the radiocarbon dating laboratories, recorded in his 1996 book, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," he had been told that in the Italian newspaper La Stampa of 27 April 1987, Prof. Luigi Gonella (1930-2007), the Archbishop of Turin's scientific adviser, had said that only two or three laboratories would be involved in the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, not seven as had been agreed at a Turin workshop of October 1986. Gove, an anti-Christian agnostic, was also troubled that the predominantly (but not exclusively) Christian Shroud of Turin Project (STURP) would conduct its own scientific tests on the Shroud in conjunction with the radiocarbon dating [27Apr87]. Gove, realising that due to his clashes with Gonella, his Rochester laboratory would not be one of the two or three laboratories chosen to date the Shroud, sent a telegram on 6 May 1987, with a letter to follow, to the heads of the six other laboratories and Dr Tite of the British Museum. The joint letter would be delivered to the President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Prof. Carlos Chagas Filho (1910- 2000) [Right [2]]. In the telegram Gove stated, "If the Turin workshop agreement is not followed to the letter, I am no longer willing to be involved ..." and his following letter demanded that, "... all seven laboratories must be involved in the tests" and that "... two or three laboratories ... so directly contravenes the Turin workshop agreement that it could severely jeopardize the carbon dating enterprise." But two of the six other laboratories, the non-AMS Harwell and Brookhaven, declined to allow their names to be used in Gove's letter, which was sent to Prof. Chagas on 11 May 1987 [06May87].

c. 15 June 1987 On 19 May Gove had met with Prof. Chagas in Boston [3], and received from him a `these things take time' explanation to Gove's question as to why there had been a delay since the Turin Workshop of October 1986 in dating the Shroud[4]. Chagas also told Gove that the Pope had given the Archbishop of Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero (1913-1998), the "complete right to make decisions regarding the Shroud tests"[5]. Following Gove's meeting with Chagas almost another month passed and still there was no decision on dating the Shroud, which Gove in his anti-STURP paranoia, put down to:

"Clearly it was due to STURP's implacable desire to be part of the process"[5].

Gove's anti-Christian bias is evident in that it was not STURP's tests that Gove objected to but that they would be "part of the process"!

In his "frustration and annoyance"[6], Gove wrote:

"I decided to write a firm letter to Professor Chagas, which I sent to Canuto in mid-June. He had agreed to deliver it when he met Chagas in Rome in a couple of days"[7].

"Canuto" is Dr Vittorio Canuto, an astrophysicist at the NASA Institute

[Left: Astrophysicist Dr. Vittorio M. Canuto, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies[8].]

for Space Studies in New York City, was a scientific aide of Prof. Chagas[9].

Gove continued:

"In the letter, I sharply criticized the way in which the Turin authorities had handled matters concerning the shroud in the past and the way they were continuing to mishandle them[10]."

The egotistical Gove[11] was blind to his own part in creating difficulties for the Turin authorities in arranging the Shroud's radiocarbon dating by (as we shall see) his campaign to exclude STURP from the testing altogether and his attempt to get Rome to override Turin. Gove's "mid-June" letter to Chagas continued:

"I noted that the shroud had been subjected to a number of scientific tests of dubious value carried out in ill conceived ways by scientists of unknown reputation[12]."

This is both "untrue and unsubstantiated"[13]. In fact "the STURP members came from some of the most prestigious U.S. institutions, including Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia Laboratory, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Air Force Academy and others, most of which were and are involved in the U.S.' nuclear and space programs"[14]. And what's more they knew vastly more about the Shroud than Gove and the other members of the radiocarbon dating laboratories.

Gove continues with his "untrue and unsubstantiated" dismissal of past Shroud pro-authenticity research:

"First was the investigation by Professor Gilbert Raes of shroud samples removed in 1973. Not only were his discoveries of minimal significance, but his care of the samples and their subsequent control by Turin was so careless that the samples were judged not to be suitable for carbon dating[15]."

This is both false and unfair. It is false beause Raes was a textile expert and his discoveries about the Shroud as a textile were significant. Indeed Gove himself mentions one:

"His examination of the samples under an electron microscope convinced Raes that there were trace amounts of Egyptian cotton present in the predominant linen of the shroud. This could constitute evidence that the shroud was woven on a loom in the Near East previously used to weave cotton[16]."

And it is unfair because as the Foreword to Gove's book states, before the invention in 1977 by Gove and others of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating, it was not feasible to radiocarbon date the Shroud because the amount of cloth required to be destroyed was unacceptably high[17]. To expect a textile expert in 1973 to make provision for the future radiocarbon dating of his Shroud samples by a method that hadn't yet been invented, is just one example in his book of Gove's extreme and unscientific prejudice against the authenticity of the Shroud!

Besides, as Gove's own book states, Raes "stored the samples in a stamp box in his desk"[18]. So if that made them "not ... suitable for carbon dating," then how much more was the eventual radiocarbon dating sample "not ... suitable for carbon dating," when "hundreds of depictions of the Shroud being held up before the crowds during past centuries" shows the Shroud being held at that very same corner (see below) from which the radiocarbon dating sample was cut, resulting in

[Above (enlarge): "Ostension of the Holy Shroud" (1579) engraving by Carlo Malliano of the 1578 Exposition of the Shroud in Turin[19]. The radiocarbon dating sample came from the top left hand corner being held by a cleric's "sweaty hands".]

a cumulative "contamination from hundreds of sweaty hands at this corner"[20] of the Shroud!

Gove in his letter to Chagas next vented his "frustration and annoyance" at STURP:

"This was followed in 1978 by the STURP tests carried out by people who were already convinced they were dealing with Christ's shroud"[21]

This is simply false. Members of STURP included not only Christians but also Jews and agnostics:

"FOR THE PAST three years, this case of identity has absorbed the spare time of the thirty men and women associated with the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Inc. (STURP). With respect to the hereafter the group is an ecumenical one — among its members are Baptists, Lutherans, Mormons, Episcopalians, Jews, Roman Catholics, and agnostics ..." (emphasis original)[22].

And even most of the Christians were not initially convinced that the Shroud was Christ's. In fact the initial attitude of many (if not most) members of STURP, including the Christians, was skepticism as expressed by the late Ray Rogers (1927–2005):

"The attitude of many of these scientists toward the central question posed by the Shroud of Turin-is it real or isn't it?-was well expressed by Ray Rogers when he joined the team: `Give me twenty minutes and I'll have this thing shot full of holes'"[23].

That initial scepticism included Ken Stevenson who became STURP's most outspokenly Christian member[24]:

"Like many who have studied the Shroud, the authors were initially skeptical of it. Stevenson first heard about it while a cadet at the U.S. Air Force Academy. He later returned to the Academy to teach on its faculty. Studies of the Shroud by his friends at the Academy persuaded him to examine the facts carefully and eventually drew him into the Shroud of Turin Research Project."[25].

Besides, since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic, it is Gove's naturalistic (nature is all there is, there is no supernatural) starting point, and its corollary, that they were not dealing with Christ's Shroud, which requires justification!

Gove's "untrue and unsubstantiated" attack on STURP continued:

"Not only did these measurements yield negligibly significant results, but they subjected the shroud to a number of intrusive stresses."

These are both false. Among STURP's highly "significant results," were: 1) the Shroud is not a painting; 2) the image is a physical change of the linen fibrils (i.e. dehydration, oxidation and conjugation); 3) the Shroud had covered a real human body; 4) the blood is real human blood; 5) the image is three-dimensional; and 6) no known naturalistic process or combination of processes can account for the totality of the image:

"A Summary of STURP's Conclusions ... No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils [that constitutes the image]. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography... The scientific concensus [sic] is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately[26]."

Since Gove must have known this, his anti-Christian prejudice directed at STURP had evidently overridden his scientific objectivity in this matter. And as for Gove's unsubstantiated claim that STURP had "subjected the shroud to a number of intrusive stresses," to give one example of the lengths to which STURP went to minimise stress to the Shroud, instead of using metal tacks to secure the Shroud as past expositions had done, STURP in their 1978 examination of the Shroud used magnets to position the cloth on their own stainless steel examination table[27].

"Gove's incredible letter continued..."[28]:

"I stated that almost every aspect of the STURP organization was distasteful to many other scientists. This included their clear religious zeal, their questionable sources of support, their military mind set and, last but not least, their assumption that the Turin Shroud was their property as self-appointed investigators of its origins and properties."

Gove the agnostic[29] anti-Christian (see above) forgets that he is writing to a representative of a Christian church, criticising STURP for allegedly having "religious zeal"! Since many (if not most) scientists are atheist/agnostics[30], it would not be surprising if those who knew about STURP would find their taking the Shroud seriously as the very burial sheet of Jesus (rather than rejecting it out of hand), as "distasteful." But so what? Since when has personal "distaste" been a scientific criterion to exclude qualified scientists from carrying out a scientific investigation?

It is not clear what Gove meant by STURP's, "questionable sources of support." But whatever Gove meant, there was nothing "questionable" about STURP. Everything STURP did was at the highest scientific and ethical plane. All STURP's scientific findings were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals[31]. And as for ethics, Gove's `snake in the grass,' undermining of STURP, without STURP's knowledge so it could respond was highly unethical:

"Until Gove's book was published in 1996, STURP scientists were at a complete loss to explain their elimination from the testing and dating of the Shroud or to explain fully the controversy surrounding the removal and dating of the Shroud sample. Gove's book supplied many answers. From the beginning of STURP's carbon dating efforts in 1979 until the publication of Gove's book in 1996, STURP scientists were unaware of Gove's deep-seated animosity toward them and of his efforts behind the scenes to eliminate them[32]"

Gove personal distaste of STURP having a "military mind set" is actually a backhanded compliment! STURP's founding members John Jackson and Eric Jumper were US Air Force officers as well as scientists[33]. And if it were not for their military-trained planning and and organisation, the transporting of STURP's eight tons of equipment[35] [Right (enlarge)[36].] and over 30 team members[37] to Turin in October 1978, to carry out 120 hours of round-the-clock examination of the Shroud[38], would not have happened.

As for Gove's "their [STURP'S] assumption that the Turin Shroud was their property as self-appointed investigators of its origins and properties," it is self-evidently false that STURP assumed that the Shroud was its property. And the fact is that STURP was appointed by the Archbishop of Turin in 1978 to investigate the Shroud, and STURP had submitted a proposal to the Archbishop of Turin to carry out further tests in conjunction with the radiocarbon dating, and that proposal was under active consideration. Indeed if anyone was self-appointed and considered the Shroud to be his property, it was Gove! Who appointed him? On what authority did Gove write his letter to Chagas, threatening that, "if STURP participates in the carbon dating enterprise in any way" he would "guarantee" the withdrawal of all the laboratories from the Shroud's radiocarbon dating?

Gove in his letter to Chagas then made "comments and suggestions" that even he realised were "presumptuous":

"Now, however, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, under Chagas, had a chance to change all this. I went on to make some comments and suggestions noting that, in so doing, Chagas might consider me presumptuous. Among these were the following: 1. Without the continued leadership of Chagas as president of the Pontifical Academy, the present carbon dating consortium would probably become disenchanted and withdraw their participation[39]."

This is tantamount to blackmail by Gove, but there is no evidence that the other laboratories cared whether or not Chagas and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences were in control of the dating. And in fact when it was announced by Turin Archbishop Cardinal Ballestrero on 10 October 1987, "that only the Oxford, Arizona and Zurich laboratories would take part in the testing" and "that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (and thereby Professor Chagas), should have no further part in the project"[40], the three chosen laboratories had no problem with that.

Continuing with Gove's point "1." above:

"This action would be guaranteed if STURP participates in the carbon dating enterprise in any way[41]."

So such was Gove's anti-Christian animosity (if not hatred) towards STURP that if it participated in the carbon dating "in any way," Gove would try to get the laboratories to "withdraw their participation" in the carbon dating! Again, it is unlikely that the laboratories would have agreed with Gove's ultimatum. Turin's eventual cancellation of STURP's proposed tests was presumably nothing to do with Gove's threats but, consistent with the reduction from seven laboratories to three, a need to assert control over the entire testing which had grown too large and complex.

Gove's remaining points "2" to "4" are a rag-bag of his personal complaints about STURP that, even if they were true, were comparatively trivial:

"2. If the delays in carrying out the carbon dating were sudden concerns for conservation, then conservation experts should be contacted by the Pontifical Academy and not by STURP. 3. At the American Chemical Society meeting in Denver, it was stated that shroud samples would be removed from behind the patches for stable isotope ratio measurements by STURP. Such measurements would tell whether the flax from which the shroud linen was made was grown in a climate that was warm or cold, wet or dry! I described this, quite charitably, as outrageous nonsense and asked whether there was nothing that could be done to hold STURP in check. 4. I also reminded Chagas of the pressure STURP representatives had subjected Madame Flury-Lemberg to at the time of the Turin workshop and, exaggeratedly, compared it to the Spanish Inquisition. I noted that Madame Flury-Lemberg was a gentle person quite unschooled in dealing with people like Mr Lukasik and his colleagues like the Reverend Dr Dinegar. I observed that the STURP members had been extremely discourteous to Madame Flury-Lemberg and had pressured her unduly. I had hoped the involvement of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences under Chagas' leadership would bring a proper degree of international scientific dispassion and integrity to the scientific endeavours to solve the mystery of the Turin Shroud. So far it had not because, clearly, he was unable to control the antics of STURP."

It is further evidence of Gove's blindness to his own attitude towards STURP that he sees no contradiction in comparing STURP with "the Spanish Inquisition" and his claim to, unlike STURP, possess "scientific dispassion"!

Gove concluded his account of his letter to Chagas with, "I never received any reply from Professor Chagas nor any indication of how he reacted to it":

"One would be amused by the whole farce if one did not feel so saddened by the consequences STURP's activities would have in elucidating the mystery of the most important relic or icon — whichever it turned out to be — in the Christian world. "In conclusion, although I am sure all of us who will be directly involved in the carbon dating hope the shroud will be subjected only to sensible and prudent scientific examination and testing, there is nothing we can do about whatever activities are being planned by STURP. What is in our power, however, is to ensure that STURP plays no role in carbon dating. STURP is nowhere mentioned in the Turin Workshop Protocol. We count on you to ensure that at least this one measurement will be carried out in a credible way without being tainted by STURP. After a sample is removed for carbon dating STURP can carry out any measurement they wish, however frivolous, as far as I am concerned." It was a tough letter — not couched in diplomatic niceties — but it reflected the frustration and annoyance I felt at the way things were going. I never received any reply from Professor Chagas nor any indication of how he reacted to it. By then he may have realized, as I did not at the time, that his boss, the pope, had cut him out of the action."

Presumably Prof. Chagas, who "was deeply religious and sought to reconcile science and religion as best as possible"[42] would have been deeply disappointed with Gove's extremely (if not fanatically) antagonistic attitude towards STURP, as revealed in his letter. Indeed, if the decision had not already been made (see next 29Jun87) it may well have led to Chagas recommending to the Pope that, to minimise further conflict, neither Gove, nor STURP, nor even the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, be involved in the Shroud's radiocarbon dating!

Continued in the part #5 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. "Carlos Chagas Filho," Academia Brasileira de Ciências, n.d. [return]
3. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, p.190. [return]
4. Gove, 1996, p.191. [return]
5. Ibid. [return]
6. Gove, 1996, p.193. [return]
7. Gove, 1996, p.191. [return]
8. "Speech by Vittorio Canuto, Session III," YouTube, October 11, 2011. [return]
9. Gove, 1996, p.84. [return]
10. Gove, 1996, p.191. [return]
11. Wilson, I., 1997, "Recent Publications," BSTS Newsletter, No. 45, June/July; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.164. [return]
12. Gove, 1996, pp.191-192. [return]
13. Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.199. [return]
14. Marino, J.G., 2016, "The Politics of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud," Part I: Pre-April 21st, 1988, p.8. [return]
15. Gove, 1996, p.192. [return]
16. Gove, 1996, p.6. [return]
17. Gove, 1996, pp.ix, 7. [return]
18. Gove, 1996, p.6. [return]
19. "Books," Geocities, October, 2009. [return]
20. Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, pp.192, 227. [return]
21. Gove, 1996, p.192. [return]
22. Murphy, C., 1981, "Shreds of evidence: Science confronts the miraculous-the Shroud of Turin," Harper's, Vol. 263, November, pp.42-65, 43. [return]
23. Murphy, 1981, p.44. [return]
24. Morgan, R.H., 1982, "Legal Action in USA," Shroud News, No 11, p.5. [return]
25. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, p.9. [return]
26. "A Summary of STURP's Conclusions," October 1981, Shroud.com. [return]
27. Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, p.33; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," [1983], Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.132. [return]
28. Antonacci, 2000, p.200. [return]
29. Gove, 1996, p.101; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.9. [return]
30. Masci, D., 2009, "Scientists and Belief," Pew Research Center, November 5. [return]
31. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, pp.184-185; Antonacci, 2000, p.234. [return]
32. Antonacci, 2000, p.196. [return]
33. Murphy, 1981, p.43; Adams, F.O., 1982, "Sindon: A Layman's Guide to the Shroud of Turin," Synergy Books: Tempe AZ, p.93; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 22; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.8, 33; Wilson, 1998, pp.26-27; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.60; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.202. [return]
35. Antonacci, 2000, p.47; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, pp.67-68.; Tribbe, 2006, p.132; Oxley, 2010, pp.209, 212. [return]
36. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.67. [return]
37. Guerrera, 2001, p.60. [return]
38. Heller, 1983, pp.117, 201; Antonacci, 2000, p.234; Borkan, 1995, p.21; Antonacci, 2000, p.194; Guerrera, 2001, p.60; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, p.23. [return]
39. Gove, 1996, p.192. [return]
40. Wilson, 1998, p.183. [return]
41. Gove, 1996, p.192. [return]
42. "Carlos Chagas Filho: Scientific leadership and honours," Wikipedia, 30 June 2017. [return]

Posted: 7 July 2017. Updated: 7 August 2019.